2017 had the worst job growth since 2012

[realibrad]

That is incorrect. Anyone not institutionalized who is 16 or older is counted in the Labor Force Participation Rate.

No. I suggest you look up the definition and read it fully.


https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#definitions

• The labor force participation rate. This measure is the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. In other words, it is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively seeking work.

If you just read the first part, you will be mislead. Participation rate is the total of those working and looking for work. So you could say those working and those unemployed.

 

[bshole]

So the rich get a big tax increase? Where does that extra tax money go?

It pays for the loss of revenue due to the decrease in the corporate tax rate. Make it a revenue neutral bill. The great thing is that it would discourage corporations from leaving. When they stay because of the reduced tax rate, we tax the people who work here.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

No. I suggest you look up the definition and read it fully.


https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#definitions



If you just read the first part, you will be mislead. Participation rate is the total of those working and looking for work. So you could say those working and those unemployed.

Just run the numbers. Do the math. If Labor participation is at 62.7% and there are 95 million unemployed then they are looking at a total population of approx 255 million people being calculated.

This table breaks down the people by age group for 2016. You will notice it includes everyone 16 and up and lines up with those numbers.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They have to have left the workforce, but for a retired person to be counted they must be considered a discouraged worker.


http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-pres...son-for-the-drop-in-labor-force-participation

This is a newer look at what has been going on.

I cite a paper from a Fed economist and you cite a blog. Hmmm.

Here's what Elisabeth Jacobs has to say on the matter.
http://equitablegrowth.org/research...pation-rate-causes-consequences-path-forward/

The clearest cause of the decline in the overall labor force participation rate is the aging of the population. The Baby Boom generation, born between 1946 and 1964, is a large cohort of workers whose retirement age coincides with decline in labor force participation that began in 2000. As these workers retired, they left the labor force and in turn pushed down the total labor force participation rate.
​

EDIT: Retirees are NOT included as part of the denominator of the participation rate equation and that part of this post has been deleted. The rest stands.

​

 

[brandonbull]

It pays for the loss of revenue due to the decrease in the corporate tax rate. Make it a revenue neutral bill. The great thing is that it would discourage corporations from leaving. When they stay because of the reduced tax rate, we tax the people who work here.

So we take money away from the rich to give it back to them?

 

[realibrad]

Just run the numbers. Do the math. If Labor participation is at 62.7% and there are 95 million unemployed then they are looking at a total population of approx 255 million people being calculated.

This table breaks down the people by age group for 2016. You will notice it includes everyone 16 and up and lines up with those numbers.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm

I'm not sure what to tell you. The literal definition from the same source you are linking now disagrees with you. Literally every definition you can find disagrees with you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm not sure what to tell you. The literal definition from the same source you are linking now disagrees with you. Literally every definition you can find disagrees with you.

Retirees directly affect the participation rate as they are included within the denominator of the equation.

Labor Force Participation Rate = Labor Force / Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population

BLS definition as follows:

• The labor force participation rate. This measure is the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. In other words, it is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively seeking work.

EDIT: I'm wrong on this point. Please ignore.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'm not sure what to tell you. The literal definition from the same source you are linking now disagrees with you. Literally every definition you can find disagrees with you.

The numbers don't disagree. You can't arrive at 62.7% participation if you exclude anyone over the age of 16. It's not mathematically possible.

Don't parse definitions. parse the numbers. It's not possible.

 

[Engineer]

I'm seeing a ton of help wanted signs for low end jobs. I'm hoping for improvement in the manufacturing sector soon as well since unemployment is currently at a record low of 2.6% in November....coming in below 3% for the first time ever.

Factories are so understaffed that it's unbelievable. They have started advertising via billboard and directly on the radio. They don't have enough people for three shifts so they are working two sets of people - two shifts - twelve hours each and doing it for weeks on end. One factory that I've been to many times is running two shifts - seven days a week. Their people have worked twelve hour days for up to six straight weeks with no days off. They were missing shipments and having to courier or fly part shipments to their customers (Automotive - just in time manufacturing).

Just can't get employees. Of course, hiring through temporary staffing services instead of direct hire - with fewer benefits and lower pay - will do that to you.

But, the problem is pay and benefits. Wages are still flat in those areas. We keep hearing that we have a huge labor shortage. I'm not so sure we don't have a huge wage problem - stagnant wages for a decade plus.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Factories are so understaffed that it's unbelievable. They have started advertising via billboard and directly on the radio. They don't have enough people for three shifts so they are working two sets of people - two shifts - twelve hours each and doing it for weeks on end. One factory that I've been to many times is running two shifts - seven days a week. Their people have worked twelve hour days for up to six straight weeks with no days off. They were missing shipments and having to courier or fly part shipments to their customers (Automotive - just in time manufacturing).

Just can't get employees. Of course, hiring through temporary staffing services instead of direct hire - with fewer benefits and lower pay - will do that to you.

But, the problem is pay and benefits. Wages are still flat in those areas. We keep hearing that we have a huge labor shortage. I'm not so sure we don't have a huge wage problem - stagnant wages for a decade plus.

IMO the current situation is quickly getting worse and the paradigm is going to shift relatively soon.

 

[realibrad]

Retirees directly affect the participation rate as they are included within the denominator of the equation.

Labor Force Participation Rate = Labor Force / Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population

BLS definition as follows:

• The labor force participation rate. This measure is the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. In other words, it is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively seeking work.

You must follow what they are saying there.

Look, here is where they explain how they do their calculation.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/e...and-labor-force-participation-rate-by-age.htm

The employment–population ratio is the proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population that is employed. The labor force participation rate is the labor force (the sum of the employed and the unemployed) as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population.

Employed are people working. Unemployed are people not working but looking for work. So, the person must be working, or looking for work. I'm just not sure what to tell you two here.

 

[greatnoob]

I'm not saying this..the economists are saying this...along with various theories regarding the delay in wage growth. It's pretty much a given that it's going to happen...as well as inflationary pressure coming along with it.

Who are "the economists"? Post the academic papers you've been reading and what these supposed "various theories" are.

 

[bshole]

So we take money away from the rich to give it back to them?

Yes, it works out even BUT it removes that particular incentive for a corporation to move jobs out of America. At least that is my hypothesis. There is enough evidence out there to suggest to me that our corporate tax rate MAY be causing companies to move some operations overseas as tax havens.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You must follow what they are saying there.

Look, here is where they explain how they do their calculation.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/e...and-labor-force-participation-rate-by-age.htm



Employed are people working. Unemployed are people not working but looking for work. So, the person must be working, or looking for work. I'm just not sure what to tell you two here.

Those people are the 62.7%. They are the ones participating. They are working or looking so they are active participants in the labor market. They are then calculated against the entire population over the age of 16 that is noninstitutionalized. You end up with a population of about 160 million looking for work and that is divided by the 255 million total that are over the age of 16. You end up with 62.7% participating. 95 million aren’t participating due to retirement, disability, in school, just not working etc...

 

[dank69]

Wait, I thought we were nowhere close to full employment and that unemployment was a lie because of low workforce participation rates? Did that mysteriously change in January, 2017 too?

You should see the REAL jobs report. We went from record weaksauce to MAGA full employment in less than a year. Good luck finding the truth from the LMSM though.

 

[Bitek]

But if we are at full employment, why was the GOP/Trump tax cut heavily promoted as an employment booster? Or was that just last week's talking point, now expired?

BTW I have seen next to no evidence of rising wages, which is the best indicator we are reaching "full" employment.

Interesting read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/business/economy/jobs-report.html

 

[Bitek]

It's like if border crossing has pretty much stopped why do we need to build a wall?

Because Trump!

Considering the low unp% and lack of good workers in the construction industry, we may be opening the borders up to bring more help in. Lol
#irony

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/business/economy/jobs-report.html

Thank you. I'm trying to figure out what happens when there's more money in financial markets and higher rates at the same time. If money is a commodity, then rates should go down, not up. Or do increased rates push investors to take greater risk?

I'm kinda scratching my head... I'm also scratching my head as to why we're doing this at all. The economy is quite strong. Business is doing great & investors already get solid returns. Why the Hell anybody thinks we should further advantage the people at the top at the expense of everybody else is incomprehensible other than as a class warfare scenario.

 

[CLite]

Retirees directly affect the participation rate as they are included within the denominator of the equation.

Labor Force Participation Rate = Labor Force / Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population

BLS definition as follows:

• The labor force participation rate. This measure is the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. In other words, it is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively seeking work.

EDIT: I'm wrong on this point. Please ignore.

You were not wrong

You must follow what they are saying there.

Look, here is where they explain how they do their calculation.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/e...and-labor-force-participation-rate-by-age.htm

Employed are people working. Unemployed are people not working but looking for work. So, the person must be working, or looking for work. I'm just not sure what to tell you two here.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_08042017.pdf

You are correct, employed are people working, that number as of July 2017 is 153,513,000 per the table in the above pdf that was in one of your links.

You are correct, unemployed are people looking for work, that number is 6,981,000 per the table.

You are incorrect that the denominator does not include "not in labor force" which is 94,657,000 per the same table.

The participation rate = 62.9% = 153,513,000+ 6,981,000 / (153,513,000 + 6,981,000 + 94,657,000 )
The employment population ratio = 60.2% = 153,513,000 / (153,513,000 + 6,981,000 + 94,657,000)

The civilian noninstitutional population of 255,151,000 = 153,513,000 + 6,981,000 + 94,657,000. That is, obviously, everyone over the age of 16 whom is not institutionalized. The reason participation rate is low is because the denominator is increasing, specifically the "not in labor" portion of it which includes retirees. I'm not sure why algebra is presenting a challenge for you.

 

[mikeymikec]

Many economists are indeed predicting increased wage growth...it's just taking a little longer than expected to develop.

Would those economists be from the Heritage Foundation or actual honest to god economists?

Why don't you look for yourself and come to your own conclusions?

Whose tactic was this previously? FDC's? ie. make a baseless assertion, someone challenges it, then the person making the assertion asks them to find the basis for it.

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm just sure that full employment has nothing to do with it. /s

But by all means continue with your lunacy...it's quite entertaining to watch.

Which "red hat" is you?

 

[soulcougher73]

nm

 

[cytg111]

Which "red hat" is you?

The white one?