April unemployment numbers

ch33zw1z · May 4, 2014

Attic said:
The idea is that putting more money in the hands of these folks will stimulate the economy b/c they have shown to be guaranteed to put the money back in to the economy to generate activity and in theory benefiting everyone. Money gained at the top is much less likely to be spent. While i'm generally in favor of raising the minimum wage, it's just a band aid to larger drivers of wealth inequality that is harmful to societies and economies.

Yup. And after they raise the minimum wage, and the prices of everything goes up. where are we then.

brycejones · May 4, 2014

Anarchist420 said:
62.8% labor force participation rate with $4Tn in public spending is pretty pathetic.

Do you even have a job?

Attic · May 4, 2014

ch33zw1z said:
Yup. And after they raise the minimum wage, and the prices of everything goes up. where are we then.

I completely agree that raising the minimum wage is inflationary, that can't be denied. Though the magnitude is unclear. A bit of the argument about inflation concerns as well as job losses is a bit of having your cake and eating it too. I realize you are *not* bringing in job losses (it's just a common counter to raising min wage). We know both won't get slammed, it'd be either/or, but I haven't seen anything convincing that indicates either concern would play out to a significant or even a concerning degree. I'm content to call the bluff here and i'd like to see the thing get raised to $10. I'm a bit stunned R's in office are opposing it given the knowledge of how the recovery played out for low wage earners since 2008.

We also know that inflation is going to occur without raising the minimum wage.

I guess we can delve into cities that have or will be raising min wage to 10 or 15 an hour and how it plays out there.

dmcowen674 · May 4, 2014

ch33zw1z said:
Yup. And after they raise the minimum wage, and the prices of everything goes up. where are we then.

What do you want minimum wage to be, 25 cents an hour?

shortylickens · May 5, 2014

It could easily mean that more people have stopped looking for work.

spacejamz · May 5, 2014

zanejohnson said:
it's not enough still though... 9x28 is 500 biweekly after taxes...... 1br apartment in my town is 650/m

So in your 'example', what would this person do when they are not working their 29 hour/week part time job??? Or are you expecting them to live off a job working only 29 hours a week?

fleshconsumed · May 5, 2014

spacejamz said:
So in your 'example', what would this person do when they are not working their 29 hour/week part time job??? Or are you expecting them to live off a job working only 29 hours a week?

Well in his defense mcd is not hiring anyone full time and jiggling two part time jobs with unpredictable hours is not exactly easy.

ch33zw1z · May 5, 2014

dmcowen674 said:
What do you want minimum wage to be, 25 cents an hour?

It's not what I want it to be that matters. That's a immature way to think about it.

ch33zw1z · May 5, 2014

Attic said:
I completely agree that raising the minimum wage is inflationary, that can't be denied. Though the magnitude is unclear. A bit of the argument about inflation concerns as well as job losses is a bit of having your cake and eating it too. I realize you are *not* bringing in job losses (it's just a common counter to raising min wage). We know both won't get slammed, it'd be either/or, but I haven't seen anything convincing that indicates either concern would play out to a significant or even a concerning degree. I'm content to call the bluff here and i'd like to see the thing get raised to $10. I'm a bit stunned R's in office are opposing it given the knowledge of how the recovery played out for low wage earners since 2008.

We also know that inflation is going to occur without raising the minimum wage.

I guess we can delve into cities that have or will be raising min wage to 10 or 15 an hour and how it plays out there.

Thanks for putting up something worth reading.

sportage · May 5, 2014

Seems to be some question as to real job creation, real job numbers, what it all means, good or bad?
But we have an option available.
Vote republicans back in, especially with taking over the senate, and we'll soon see what it means to return back to square one.
Square one i.e. Bush 2008.
Too bad the elephant is the only animal with the ability never to forget.

boomerang · May 5, 2014

werepossum said:
Just shows how useful it is to be the ones doing the counting. Really bad economic news? Make up a really good bit of info and tout that. Thus fewer people working = lower unemployment.

It's always encouraging to hear the latest "current truth". The beet crop comrades, it has broken all records!

How we did we get to this point? Where the lies being told are accepted by so many as truth?

Bowfinger · May 5, 2014

Fern said:
See bolded: I've been consistently hearing it it is now the lowest since 1978, not last October:

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lfpr-falls-to-lowest-level-since-1978-2014-5#ixzz30asRurbO

There's also a chart at that link. The October remark doesn't jibe with it.

Fern

/facepalm

Oh, for crying out loud. This isn't rocket science. What was the rate in October, 2013? Why, it was 62.8%, same as April (and Dec, 2013 too): http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 . The October remark "jibes" just fine. It would have taken you 30 seconds to verify this.

You guys really need to get over your ebil Democrat conspiracies obsession.

Bowfinger · May 5, 2014

werepossum said:
Just shows how useful it is to be the ones doing the counting. Really bad economic news? Make up a really good bit of info and tout that. Thus fewer people working = lower unemployment.

boomerang said:
It's always encouraging to hear the latest "current truth". The beet crop comrades, it has broken all records!

How we did we get to this point? Where the lies being told are accepted by so many as truth?

Yes, boys. Ignore the facts, embrace the spin. No matter how much it pains you to acknowledge it, it is good news that the unemployment rate continues to fall. No, it's not "shout from the rooftops" amazing, and yes, it's but one metric needed to understand the whole picture, but it is trending in the right direction.

The labor force participation rate is especially nuanced. We've anticipated this drop for decades, as the baby boomers retired. That can be a bad thing since it means fewer workers are supporting economic production. On the other hand, it also means more job opportunities for everyone else, including those who were unemployed.

It's also important to understand that those retirees are still supporting the economy through spending, and many are still supporting government services through the taxes on their retirement incomes. True, they are now paying less than they once did, but we added 288,000 new workers to help fill that gap. What's the net effect? I don't know. Do you?

Newell Steamer · May 5, 2014

In April, the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 6.3 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 9.8 million, decreased by 733,000.

Herp-a-derp.

My herp-a-derp and his herp-a-derp are still herp-a-derp.

They can't herp-a-derp when it's time to herp-a-derp, because of herp-a-derp.

And, need I remind herp-a-derp of the following herp-a-derps?
- Ben herp-a-derp ghazi.
- Birth herp-a-derp certificate
- Black herp-a-derp man leading the nation
- Aborted herp-a-derp fetus used to heat a hospital
- Loud herp-a-derp music

Come on, herp-a-derp already!! Are you herp-a-derp or something?!

Londo_Jowo · May 5, 2014

If you're going to go herp a derp, don't go full herp a derp and post the same thing in two threads while herp a derping in another thread.

fskimospy · May 5, 2014

werepossum said:
Just shows how useful it is to be the ones doing the counting. Really bad economic news? Make up a really good bit of info and tout that. Thus fewer people working = lower unemployment.

So you believe there is a government conspiracy to make employment numbers look better? This is fascinating, considering the transparent way these surveys are conducted each month.

Can you let us know who you think is in on the conspiracy, how they did it, and why?

fskimospy · May 5, 2014

This monthly argument about the employment survey is stupid. The surveys themselves have an initial margin of error so large on each of their elements that it can turn a good report into a bad one and vice versa. If you're really trying to get a good picture of the employment situation the important thing to look at are the trends over time along with corrected numbers from a few months back that are much more accurate.

rudder · May 5, 2014

Interest take on the numbers...

http://nypost.com/2014/05/02/april-job-boom-is-more-like-a-bust/

Any statisticians here familiar with this... That is using the birth/death model to add "phantom jobs" to the report?

theeedude · May 5, 2014

rudder said:
Interest take on the numbers...

http://nypost.com/2014/05/02/april-job-boom-is-more-like-a-bust/

Any statisticians here familiar with this... That is using the birth/death model to add "phantom jobs" to the report?

More fun conspiracy theories from Fox News' sister newspaper.

fskimospy · May 5, 2014

rudder said:
Interest take on the numbers...

http://nypost.com/2014/05/02/april-job-boom-is-more-like-a-bust/

Any statisticians here familiar with this... That is using the birth/death model to add "phantom jobs" to the report?

The guy writing that is a conspiracy theory crank. (he's the same one that claimed the census bureau was conspiring to inflate employment numbers to re-elect Obama) Not to mention he also throws in digs against QE that show a pretty basic ignorance of basic economics.

Insofar as his complaints about the birth/death model go, he's just selectively complaining. April, May, and June tend to have large positive effects, yes. These are baked into economists' estimates, btw. Other months have large negative effects, yet you never saw this guy saying that job creation was better than the numbers showed because of the negative effects, did you?

TLDR: If the birth/death model is adding 'phantom jobs' to the market now it was causing 'phantom job losses' in other months. It should not be shocking that this guy did not see fit to criticize the model when it produced economic news in line with the narrative he wanted to push.

EDIT: It is also pretty nutty to complain about BLS's statistical methods making the April jobs report look rosier than it is. Unadjusted employment numbers for April show an increase of about 1.1 million jobs. BLS's methods actually make job gains for April look MUCH lower than they really are. Again, this is a smart and valid way to assess employment, but it is hardly making things look better than they are.

werepossum · May 5, 2014

Bowfinger said:
Yes, boys. Ignore the facts, embrace the spin. No matter how much it pains you to acknowledge it, it is good news that the unemployment rate continues to fall. No, it's not "shout from the rooftops" amazing, and yes, it's but one metric needed to understand the whole picture, but it is trending in the right direction.

The labor force participation rate is especially nuanced. We've anticipated this drop for decades, as the baby boomers retired. That can be a bad thing since it means fewer workers are supporting economic production. On the other hand, it also means more job opportunities for everyone else, including those who were unemployed.

It's also important to understand that those retirees are still supporting the economy through spending, and many are still supporting government services through the taxes on their retirement incomes. True, they are now paying less than they once did, but we added 288,000 new workers to help fill that gap. What's the net effect? I don't know. Do you?

It's not good news that the unemployment rate went down if it went down due to people giving up on finding work. It's merely made to look like good news.

eskimospy said:
So you believe there is a government conspiracy to make employment numbers look better? This is fascinating, considering the transparent way these surveys are conducted each month.

Can you let us know who you think is in on the conspiracy, how they did it, and why?

Conspiracy? No. I believe the "new and improved" method of calculating joblessness is intentionally designed to give rosier results than the old method.

fskimospy · May 5, 2014

werepossum said:
Conspiracy? No. I believe the "new and improved" method of calculating joblessness is intentionally designed to give rosier results than the old method.

What is this based on? What aspects of their reporting and calculations do this? Be specific.

Texashiker · May 5, 2014

eskimospy said:
What is this based on? What aspects of their reporting and calculations do this? Be specific.

The economy grew at .1% during the first quarter 2014.

http://time.com/82434/gdp-economy-first-quarter-2014/

If fewer people are filing for unemployment, where are the getting jobs at?

The economic growth report does not confirm the unemployment numbers. In other words, the 2 numbers do not jive.

werepossum · May 5, 2014

eskimospy said:
What is this based on? What aspects of their reporting and calculations do this? Be specific.

It's based on the new system consistently yielding lower unemployment numbers than the old system. When the new system consistently yields lower unemployment numbers than the old system, one doesn't really need to know why the new system consistently yields lower unemployment numbers than the old system to know that the new system consistently yields lower unemployment numbers than the old system.

Knowing · May 5, 2014

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA

If they aren't "participating" in the labor market, then they aren't counted as unemployed. If they run out of unemployment insurance and didn't get a job, they aren't in the labor market anymore. I don't know that the government collects data on ongoing claims, which is curious because that would tell us what is happening to these hundreds of thousands of people.

Shröedinger's Laborers

April unemployment numbers

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

No Lifer

No Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Lifer

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Golden Member