Post by: Little Joe on June 03, 2016, 06:33:08 AM
But wait,
Don't we need around 200,000 new jobs just to keep up?
So how does the unemployment rate keep dropping?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-38000-jobs-in-may-unemployment-falls-to-47-2016-06-03
Quote
The unemployment rate, in a surprising twist, fell to 4.7% from 5% to mark the lowest level since the month before the Great Recession began in December 2007. Yet the decline owed almost entirely to 458,000 people leaving the labor force. The labor-force participation fell for the second month in a row to 62.6%, the Labor Department said Friday.
Post by: Lucifer on June 03, 2016, 06:49:37 AM
Further proof that Obama was right the other day when he said the economy is in great shape!
But wait,
Don't we need around 200,000 new jobs just to keep up?
So how does the unemployment rate keep dropping?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-38000-jobs-in-may-unemployment-falls-to-47-2016-06-03
Figures lie and liars figure.
The whole unemployment rate is the biggest scam. Right now there are 90+million not in the work force. The real unemployment rate is up over 20%, but the government keeps trying to hide it with phony numbers.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 03, 2016, 06:53:21 AM
are you a giver or a taker?
Post by: Little Joe on June 03, 2016, 07:00:46 AM
general question:For now; neither.
are you a giver or a taker?
I am retired and living off of my savings. I am paying my own insurance and I am not drawing SS. My home is paid off,
but I still pay property taxes, school taxes, sales taxes, telecommunications taxes, gasoline taxes, income taxes and more.
Also I paid a pretty large "excise" tax on some tires I bought and yesterday I paid $257.50 for radiotelephone licenses and DHS decals to fly to Canada.
I have also donated around $10k to charity so far this year, and I sent $2k to my brother to help him feed his kids and pay his mortgage and car insurance.
So I guess for now, I am a giver.
Post by: bflynn on June 03, 2016, 07:57:41 AM
The 3% drop represents roughly 9 million more people who gave up during Obama's presidency. If we assume $1,500/month in welfare benefits for them, this is not only a $160 billion dollar direct cost, but also a loss of 280 billion in salaries and 70 billion in tax revenue. That's a quarter of a trillion dollar swing.
Of course I put the blame on government regulation suppressing businesses, enabling malingerers and allowing foreigner workers to take jobs away from Americans.
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=944.0;attach=177;image)
Post by: nddons on June 03, 2016, 08:00:24 AM
Further proof that Obama was right the other day when he said the economy is in great shape!RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!
But wait,
Don't we need around 200,000 new jobs just to keep up?
So how does the unemployment rate keep dropping?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-38000-jobs-in-may-unemployment-falls-to-47-2016-06-03
Post by: Bob Noel on June 03, 2016, 08:24:56 AM
This is how it keeps going down. The Labor Force Participation Rate is the percentage of people who are able to work but do not. I call it the inverse of the Deadbeat Rate because it shows the number of people who would rather sit on their butts and collect welfare than do something productive.
not all people who are able to work and don't are collecting welfare.
And, not all people under age 65 who are able to work and don't are collecting welfare.
Post by: bflynn on June 03, 2016, 08:27:39 AM
My spur of the moment numbers above were off - Googling welfare benefits, I see $750 monthly is a more accurate number, although that does not take into account non-welfare benefits such as WIC and Medicaid. But, let's go with $750.
Also I used the liberal's $15/hour target wage. I'm remember the convenience store I went to yesterday had a sticker on the window that promised $10/hour, so let's use that.
The welfare cost then is monthly cost * 12 * number of people, which I compute to 852 billion dollars. The lost salaries are wage * 40 * 50 * number of people, which I compute to be 1.894 trillion dollars, with the annual salary at $20,000. Applying a 15% tax rate, we make up 284 billion in tax revenue.
Together, these are a 1.136 trillion dollar swing. And keep in mind that this does not include other benefits, so the swing is even higher.
Question - when looking at our budget deficit, isn't a significant source of our problem that we allow or even encourage people loafing around?
Post by: Bob Noel on June 03, 2016, 08:34:16 AM
uestion - when looking at our budget deficit, isn't a significant source of our problem that we allow or even encourage people loafing around?
nah. Also, don't be fooled by the fact that the unemployed looking for work seem to magically find a job just after their unemployment benefits expire. Doesn't seem to matter if it's 26 weeks or 52 weeks or 99 weeks. There seems to be some strange coincidence between the length of unemployment benefits and the length of time required to find a new job.
But I'm sure it's just coincidence.
Post by: Little Joe on June 03, 2016, 08:36:30 AM
not all people who are able to work and don't are collecting welfare.Uh, I don't believe anyone stated "all people" anywhere.
And, not all people under age 65 who are able to work and don't are collecting welfare.
I'm under 65 and I don't work or collect any welfare or ss or any other assistance.
Post by: Little Joe on June 03, 2016, 08:39:54 AM
Believe it or not, I don't like Trump. But you just summed up a large part of why I will vote for him.
snip
Of course I put the blame on government regulation suppressing businesses, enabling malingerers and allowing foreigner workers to take jobs away from Americans.
Hillary will make all the above worse.
Count on it.
Trump at least says a lot of the right things when it comes to those areas.
Trump is also less likely to bull through liberal SC Justices.
Post by: Dav8or on June 03, 2016, 08:42:23 AM
Figures lie and liars figure.
The whole unemployment rate is the biggest scam. Right now there are 90+million not in the work force. The real unemployment rate is up over 20%, but the government keeps trying to hide it with phony numbers.
And you know this to be true how??? Refer to your first sentence.
Post by: Lucifer on June 03, 2016, 08:47:09 AM
And you know this to be true how??? Refer to your first sentence.
Just go look at the raw data, it's all there.
Here's an article today: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94708000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-drops
And by the way, all of the data is available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 03, 2016, 12:28:00 PM
Uh, I don't believe anyone stated "all people" anywhere.
I'm under 65 and I don't work or collect any welfare or ss or any other assistance.
Implied by "I call it the inverse of the Deadbeat Rate because it shows the number of people who would rather sit on their butts and collect welfare than do something productive." and "If we assume $1,500/month in welfare benefits for them" in reply #4.
Post by: Number7 on June 03, 2016, 07:26:30 PM
It wouldn't surprise me to wake up one morning and discover that the government has been cooking the jobless numbers by three-quarters.
Post by: Dav8or on June 04, 2016, 12:05:29 PM
Just go look at the raw data, it's all there.
Here's an article today: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94708000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-drops
And by the way, all of the data is available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Oh, ok. You trust those numbers, but not others.
Post by: Lucifer on June 04, 2016, 12:59:55 PM
Oh, ok. You trust those numbers, but not others.
Math must be difficult for you.
Post by: Little Joe on June 04, 2016, 01:00:46 PM
Oh, ok. You trust those numbers, but not others.It's not the numbers I don't trust. It's the interpretation, or the "spin" if you will, that is misleading.
Post by: Anthony on June 04, 2016, 01:02:45 PM
It's not the numbers I don't trust. It's the interpretation, or the "spin" if you will, that is misleading.
Same with the inflation rate. I don't trust the Feds to be honest at all. It is way to Democrat, and way to politically biased.
Post by: bflynn on June 04, 2016, 01:28:30 PM
It's not the numbers I don't trust. It's the interpretation, or the "spin" if you will, that is misleading.
What don't you trust? Do you think the number of people participating in the labor force is going up?
The fact that it's gone down so much and that going down has cost you and me and addition X.YZ trillion dollars is bad whether the BLS is lying about the rate or not. The only thing it changes is how much, whether it's whole lot or a whole, whole lot.
The formulas are very public and computed using very public data. If you think they try to jigger the formula then you'd want to research how long these equations have been in use and then maybe reconsider.
It's largely impossible to manipulate the data at the BLS because there are so many people looking at it. Any hint of manipulation would cast doubt on all of it in a way that would make the global warming manipulation doubt look like nothing. Yet, 99% of us have trust that the raw data is substantially correct. You can place some blame on the liars that figure, but if you do, go back and find out which liar it was, because it wasn't any of the current ones.
Post by: Little Joe on June 04, 2016, 01:50:54 PM
What don't you trust? Do you think the number of people participating in the labor force is going up?What I said was it is NOT the numbers I don't trust. The numbers are the "data", so I trust the data.
The fact that it's gone down so much and that going down has cost you and me and addition X.YZ trillion dollars is bad whether the BLS is lying about the rate or not. The only thing it changes is how much, whether it's whole lot or a whole, whole lot.
The formulas are very public and computed using very public data. If you think they try to jigger the formula then you'd want to research how long these equations have been in use and then maybe reconsider.
It's largely impossible to manipulate the data at the BLS because there are so many people looking at it. Any hint of manipulation would cast doubt on all of it in a way that would make the global warming manipulation doubt look like nothing. Yet, 99% of us have trust that the raw data is substantially correct. You can place some blame on the liars that figure, but if you do, go back and find out which liar it was, because it wasn't any of the current ones.
What I don't trust is the spin.
The government never mentions the workforce participation rate because they don't want people to know about it. Sure, the numbers are public, but I'll bet 95% of the people are ignorant of them. They only know what gets reported. Ie, "unemployment" is down. Job creation is up (except for the past few months). Very few people understand what those two number mean unless it is explained to them, and it rarely is. Certainly Obama and Clinton don't spend any time talking about the real inflation rate, or the real employment numbers, or the real deficit (including unfunded liabilities).
And sure, both sides spin it to their own benefit. When employment was rising under Bush, the Democrats all said "sure, but it is all crappy jobs", just like is occurring now, only with the sides reversed.
I do believe that the government can tell the truth. But only when it fits their agenda. Right now, it doesn't.
Post by: Anthony on June 04, 2016, 01:59:46 PM
Post by: bflynn on June 04, 2016, 07:00:42 PM
What I said was it is NOT the numbers I don't trust. The numbers are the "data", so I trust the data.
What I don't trust is the spin.
The government never mentions the workforce participation rate because they don't want people to know about it. Sure, the numbers are public, but I'll bet 95% of the people are ignorant of them. They only know what gets reported. Ie, "unemployment" is down. Job creation is up (except for the past few months). Very few people understand what those two number mean unless it is explained to them, and it rarely is. Certainly Obama and Clinton don't spend any time talking about the real inflation rate, or the real employment numbers, or the real deficit (including unfunded liabilities).
And sure, both sides spin it to their own benefit. When employment was rising under Bush, the Democrats all said "sure, but it is all crappy jobs", just like is occurring now, only with the sides reversed.
I do believe that the government can tell the truth. But only when it fits their agenda. Right now, it doesn't.
The director of the BLS is appointed by the president, but it's like the Federal Reserve, appointed for a term. The BLS is independent of politics. Is your distrust of the BLS linked to your distrust of Obama? Did you trust the numbers when Bush was president before him? Can you be honest enough with yourself to know that?
The formula is what it is and it has been that way for a long time. We started tracking the Labor Force Participation rate in the 50s and used it since to calculate unemployment. That a decreasing labor force participation skews the unemployment rate is not a new discovery, it's only new to you. It did the same thing in the early 60s when the rate dropped and unemployment went also went "down".
The only difference today is that for the first time in 65 years, we're seeing a significant, sharp and consistent decline in the LFPR.
And it's not like they can hide it. Like I said, a LOT of people watch these numbers and the skew is well known. Do you criticize Obama's people for playing up the number that looks best for them? Did you similarly criticize Bush for playing up the intelligence that looked best to him?
What's the difference? Tell me something that isn't based on you liking Bush and disliking Obama.
Post by: Little Joe on June 05, 2016, 04:06:49 AM
The director of the BLS is appointed by the president, but it's like the Federal Reserve, appointed for a term. The BLS is independent of politics. Is your distrust of the BLS linked to your distrust of Obama? Did you trust the numbers when Bush was president before him? Can you be honest enough with yourself to know that?Jeez. Talk about spinning without facts!
The formula is what it is and it has been that way for a long time. We started tracking the Labor Force Participation rate in the 50s and used it since to calculate unemployment. That a decreasing labor force participation skews the unemployment rate is not a new discovery, it's only new to you. It did the same thing in the early 60s when the rate dropped and unemployment went also went "down".
The only difference today is that for the first time in 65 years, we're seeing a significant, sharp and consistent decline in the LFPR.
And it's not like they can hide it. Like I said, a LOT of people watch these numbers and the skew is well known. Do you criticize Obama's people for playing up the number that looks best for them? Did you similarly criticize Bush for playing up the intelligence that looked best to him?
What's the difference? Tell me something that isn't based on you liking Bush and disliking Obama.
You are making up things about what I thought, who I criticized and why with absolutely no idea of my history.
I'm not even going to respond AGAIN, to this. My recent post said what I meant and you apparently intentionally ignored anything that didn't fit your preconceived idea.
Post by: bflynn on June 05, 2016, 12:51:36 PM
Jeez. Talk about spinning without facts!
You are making up things about what I thought, who I criticized and why with absolutely no idea of my history.
I'm not even going to respond AGAIN, to this. My recent post said what I meant and you apparently intentionally ignored anything that didn't fit your preconceived idea.
You distrust the spin. You said that. What I was trying to explain is that formula is not new and the spin is not new.
So, have you always distrusted the government or is that new? Is is because of a preference or dislike of one side or the other? I presume that if you distrust government spin then it's because of a distrust of the current government.
You are correct, I do not know your history. I can't google it on the internet and I don't know you personally. That's why there are questions in my post. Are you faulting me for that?
You're never required to respond.
Post by: Number7 on June 05, 2016, 04:16:08 PM