Labor Participation rate at 63.5%, Unemployment 8.1%

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...rose-96-000-in-august-jobless-rate-falls.html

Unemployment rate drops to 8.1% as 368k workers leave the work force. Just think how harsh the unemployment rate would be if the labor participation rate had simply held at the average of the past 20 years. The current 63.5% is the lowest since 1981. Since 1992 it held at almost 66% or above. Let's be generous and say that the average was 65% since 92... add in another 1.5% to the unemployment rate and we would be nearing 10% unemployment at 9.6%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Labor_Participation_Rate_1948-2011.svg

 

[Jarod]

The second a drop in unemployment is anounced, they come up with some other number they say means more.

Ha, they are running scared.

Remember when they were predicting 12% unemployment. We are creating jobs, the last time a Republican was in office we were losing them.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was when Black Hussein Yobabymama took office, the unemployment rate would be over 10%.

I applaud Jarod for continuing to spin for the administration.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The second a drop in unemployment is anounced, they come up with some other number they say means more.

Ha, they are running scared.

Remember when they were predicting 12% unemployment. We are creating jobs, the last time a Republican was in office we were losing them.

Dear moron... tell us... what caused the unemployment rate to drop? Do you even care?

Of course it matters as to what caused the drop. It is a combination of jobs being added and people leaving the workforce. But don't expect morons to comprehend that.

 

[SpiritOf76]

Yeah, so much for the good numbers on wall street lifting Obama. We will not be completely out of this funk until 2018. If we get our houses in order and stop them from trying to blow new bubbles we might be in for a long expansion.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah, so much for the good numbers on wall street lifting Obama. We will not be completely out of this funk until 2018. If we get our houses in order and stop them from trying to blow new bubbles we might be in for a long expansion.

Regardless of who wins in November, the period of November 7th-Dec 31, 2013 is going to be the window of opportunity to get things done before the politicians start worrying about mid-terms. The two parties must come together and start resolving the long term issues. The constant short term stop gap measures must stop. We get bad numbers and the markets go up because they know more short term stimulus is coming??? It is an insane bubble we are creating right now.

 

[The Dude]

If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was when Black Hussein Yobabymama took office, the unemployment rate would be over 10%.

I applaud Jarod for continuing to spin for the administration.

Cnbc reported said it would be 11.5, that's what Obuma should defend

 

[Jarod]

Dear moron... tell us... what caused the unemployment rate to drop? Do you even care?

Of course it matters as to what caused the drop. It is a combination of jobs being added and people leaving the workforce. But don't expect morons to comprehend that.

Baby boomers retireing? That always happens. My point was not that the number is good, my point is that people will see it as good.

 

[Bonestorm]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...rose-96-000-in-august-jobless-rate-falls.html

Unemployment rate drops to 8.1% as 368k workers leave the work force. Just think how harsh the unemployment rate would be if the labor participation rate had simply held at the average of the past 20 years. The current 63.5% is the lowest since 1981. Since 1992 it held at almost 66% or above. Let's be generous and say that the average was 65% since 92... add in another 1.5% to the unemployment rate and we would be nearing 10% unemployment at 9.6%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Labor_Participation_Rate_1948-2011.svg

The average of the past 20 years is an even more ridiculous metric than the "at the time Obama took office" metric, which itself is silly.

I never understand why people who have an actual great point (the jobs report isn't good, and the decrease in unemployment isn't the result of an increase in jobs) have to fuck it up by overreaching with silliness.

 

[Jarod]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/0...-america’s-domestic-enemy/job-creation-chart/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The average of the past 20 years is an even more ridiculous metric than the "at the time Obama took office" metric, which itself is silly.

I never understand why people who have an actual great point (the jobs report isn't good, and the decrease in unemployment isn't the result of an increase in jobs) have to fuck it up by overreaching with silliness.

LMAO... tell us genius... why is looking at the past 20 years so ridiculous? It is a discussion on where the rate is today vs. the past. It is a comparison. What would you compare it to?

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... tell us genius... why is looking at the past 20 years so ridiculous? It is a discussion on where the rate is today vs. the past. It is a comparison. What would you compare it to?

I posted in the other thread. Basically, the average over the past 20 years is a bad metric because we are on the down side of the curve that began increasing substantially in 1980, leveled off in the mid-1990s and began declining again around 2000.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I posted in the other thread. Basically, the average over the past 20 years is a bad metric because we are on the down side of the curve that began increasing substantially in 1980, leveled off in the mid-1990s and began declining again around 2000.

Yes, you posted a chart showing from 1990 (hmm... very close to the 1992 mark I used) and your chart shows the same fucking thing I just stated that you called 'ridiculous'.

You simply showed the data from the perspective of the total number of people vs. the percentage that the labor participation rate shows.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes, you posted a chart showing from 1990 (hmm... very close to the 1992 mark I used) and your chart shows the same fucking thing I just stated that you called 'ridiculous'.

You simply showed the data from the perspective of the total number of people vs. the percentage that the labor participation rate shows.

Apparently, you didn't understand the chart. That's not at all what it shows.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Apparently, you didn't understand the chart. That's not at all what it shows.

Yes, it does. Apparently you don't understand what you are posting.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes, it does. Apparently you don't understand what you are posting.

I explained why you're wrong in that other thread. It isn't "the total number of people v. the percentage that the labor force shows." You're just plain wrong on that, but whatever.

 

[Damocles]

LMAO... tell us genius... why is looking at the past 20 years so ridiculous? It is a discussion on where the rate is today vs. the past. It is a comparison. What would you compare it to?

He'd compare it to whatever he thinks makes it look better. The number of ants in the hill behind his house, socks in his drawer with no holes... So longer as it compares favorably.

 

[Bonestorm]

He'd compare it to whatever he thinks makes it look better. The number of ants in the hill behind his house, socks in his drawer with no holes... So longer as it compares favorably.

I already provided the relevant metric in that other thread (it's not a favorable comparison, BTW) and explained why the average labor force participation rate over the past 20 years is silly.

Don't you have some fear mongering about non-existent inflation to do or something?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I already provided the relevant metric in that other thread (it's not a favorable comparison, BTW) and explained why the average labor force participation rate over the past 20 years is silly.

Don't you have some fear mongering about non-existent inflation to do or something?

Yep, no inflation

Full employment

ZERO deficit

ZERO debt

 

[Bonestorm]

Yep, no inflation

Full employment

ZERO deficit

ZERO debt

Inflation is at or below the FED target rate. It isn't anything to fear-monger about as Damo likes to do. By contrast, unemployment is entirely too high and has been for too long. The FED inflexibility on inflation is one of the main (if not the main) reason unemployment remains so high. I can assure you that were the situation reversed and unemployment below "full employment" for three years or so and inflation consistently at 4% or above, the FED would do something about it. The reverse is obviously not true.