Fewest working, or looking for work, since.........1978!!!

[Vic]

Hey I forget, was this thread about the stock market or number of people looking for work?

This thread is about the number of people not working. Keep spinning.

 

[BoberFett]

I largely agree, but I will point out that when some of us tried to point these same things out during Bush's purportedly "booming" recovery, we were dismissed as partisans. It's interesting how they suddenly reversed their denial now that a (D) is at the helm.

Plenty of people, including libertarians and a small number of Republicans, saw the Bush "recovery" for what it was. Just another bubble.

Of course as the Bush era was winding down and things were falling apart, Democrats suddenly decided that the Republicans were right, deficits don't matter, and that bailouts were going to save us. Quantitative easing was good for the country! Gotta grease the wheels of lending!

Too bad everything they've done has just been another asset bubble, no different than the Bush years. Of course most Democrats continue to defend those policies, because a (D) is at the helm.

It's all politics no matter who is fucking things up at any given time.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet if you are not getting unemployment how do they know you're looking for a job?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

 

[AViking]

So basically now that the baby boomers are retiring we're going back to the demographics the US had before WWII?

The baby boomers created a bulge in the population pyramid but is really returning to pre-wwii numbers?

 

[fskimospy]

So basically now that the baby boomers are retiring we're going back to the demographics the US had before WWII?

The baby boomers created a bulge in the population pyramid but is really returning to pre-wwii numbers?

Actually probably considerably different than that. Our fertility rates are much lower than pre-ww2. Then again, our infant mortality, etc is much lower as well.

 

[Vic]

Plenty of people, including libertarians and a small number of Republicans, saw the Bush "recovery" for what it was. Just another bubble.

We don't have booms and busts in our economy anymore. The correct buzzwords are recoveries and recessions, respectively.

 

[BoberFett]

We don't have booms and busts in our economy anymore. The correct buzzwords are recoveries and recessions, respectively.

Don't forget the bonus qualifiers, such as "jobless recovery".

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm rather concerned to see the market rise so far, seemingly detached from reality. Moonbeam would say I have nightmares of bubbles under my bed.

You'd think the labor force returning to a pre-1970s "normal" would take a bite out of everything.

 

[bradly1101]

The numbers don't always tell the full story:

People Are Not Leaving the Labor Force

If you simply download the data, you will conclude the figure [number leaving labor force] rose by 1,177,000 people from December to January, and that is what a lot of people did. But the changes in the population estimates caused all that gain, and more. The reality, the government says, is that the number of people not in the labor force fell by 75,000 people.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/02/09/people-are-not-leaving-the-labor-force/

 

[mshan]

"The Fed has said that a huge portion of the participation rate has been retirement and even Mish found out that is about right."

"So basically now that the baby boomers are retiring we're going back to the demographics the US had before WWII?

The baby boomers created a bulge in the population pyramid but is really returning to pre-wwii numbers?"

"What we have come to know as 'the jobless recovery' may be the new post-recession norm, as employers rebuild their workforces from scratch, take more time to vet candidates, and find ways to operate with fewer workers," said Chief Executive Officer John Challenger.

"To put that in perspective ... basically, every one of the 8,030,000 jobs created between August 2003 and January 2008 plus another 700,000 were wiped out," Challenger said.

Challenger, however, said jobs were being added to the economy at a faster pace than in the previous two recessions.

The problem is that the job losses were huge.

"It is just taking longer to rebuild due to the fact that we started in a much deeper hole," Challenger said.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/20...are-history/UPI-36981371758288/#ixzz2q1X5JK1B​

BLS: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea05.htm


ADP: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...onstruction-surge-highest-print-november-2012 (revised methodology since around September 2012 is no longer trying to guess what topline BLS number (initial read) is going to be, it is supposed to now estimate where they think BLS number will ultimately be revised to when more data comes in in upcoming months)


Morningstar's initial take: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/videoCenter.aspx?id=630319




Regarding market, I saw commentary near end of year which seemed to summarize it well:

- if economy is about to accelerate to faster pace (some continued earnings growth, hints of revenue growth, and start of capital expenditures on pent up projects) this year, then stock market was still cheap

- if economy stuck in same old rut (2% ish sluggish growth with stock market gains driven by dividends and share repurchases), then market is fully priced already
​

 

[First]

Yeah that top-line is obviously bad, but I think it's pretty clearly an outlier given that the November revision was very healthy, coming in at 241,000 jobs created, and October steady at 200K. Moody's and plenty of others see this 74K being revised up considerably. Probably some population survey noise here as mshan mentioned.

And while the participation rate isn't good, and while clearly participation is lower due to baby boomers retiring, most good guesstimates show that about 1/3rd of that participation drop isn't related to retirees, but discouraged workers. So you've still got a nice little sliver of the population that needs help getting out of discouragement and back into the private sector. That could take years, but probably not as long as people think. I think 2014 will definitely be a banner year economically that we haven't had in a while. I'm hoping 250K jobs per month, though less of an equity boom than 2013.

 

[zephyrprime]

A workforce participation rate bubble correcting?

That chart shows a big jump in employment rate because many more women moved into the workforce in the wake of women's lib. It's not just some sort of employment bubble.

 

[michal1980]

why would the labor participation rate be effected by retirement? wouldnt people that retire drop out of the labor pool?

 

[fskimospy]

why would the labor participation rate be effected by retirement? wouldnt people that retire drop out of the labor pool?

Because the labor participation rate is % of all Americans 16 and over who are available to work. If you're retired and not looking to work anymore, you aren't counted as participating.

 

[michal1980]

Because the labor participation rate is % of all Americans 16 and over who are available to work. If you're retired and not looking to work anymore, you aren't counted as participating.

You stated nothing that disproves my point.

if I retire. the labor participation rate shouldn't change.

for example.

labor pool = 10 people.

100% employment. so 10 people working.

10/10 = 100% labor participation.

I retire it should just go to

9/9, since I'm no longer working, and no longer part of the pool.

 

[michal1980]

The numbers don't always tell the full story:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/02/09/people-are-not-leaving-the-labor-force/

The important part of that blog imho was this:

So it [the government] has in the past overestimated the labor force participation rate.

so for the past year the feds have been lying. the number didn't suddenly get worse. It was worse for a long time.

 

[First]

You stated nothing that disproves my point.

if I retire. the labor participation rate shouldn't change.

for example.

labor pool = 10 people.

100% employment. so 10 people working.

10/10 = 100% labor participation.

I retire it should just go to

9/9, since I'm no longer working, and no longer part of the pool.

Holy shit you're slow.

 

[fskimospy]

You stated nothing that disproves my point.

if I retire. the labor participation rate shouldn't change.

for example.

labor pool = 10 people.

100% employment. so 10 people working.

10/10 = 100% labor participation.

I retire it should just go to

9/9, since I'm no longer working, and no longer part of the pool.

No, you don't understand the terms under discussion.

Labor force = 10 people

10/10 = 100% Labor force participation rate.

Employment = % of people participating in the labor force who have a job.

Employed people = 8 people.

8/10 = 80% employment rate (or 20% unemployment).

I retire.

9/10 = 90% labor force participation rate.

Employment.

8/9 people employed = ~89% employment rate (or 11% unemployment)

 

[nehalem256]

That chart shows a big jump in employment rate because many more women moved into the workforce in the wake of women's lib. It's not just some sort of employment bubble.

Just because the bubble was caused by women's lib doesn't mean it wasn't a bubble. Just because more people want jobs doesn't mean jobs will magically be create for them. Especially when you have things like out-sourcing and automation which will decrease the need for labor.

 

[michal1980]

No, you don't understand the terms under discussion.

Labor force = 10 people

10/10 = 100% Labor force participation rate.

Employment = % of people participating in the labor force who have a job.

Employed people = 8 people.

8/10 = 80% employment rate (or 20% unemployment).

I retire.

9/10 = 90% labor force participation rate.

Employment.

8/9 people employed = ~89% employment rate (or 11% unemployment)

I think you are wrong on the participation rate... in your example.

it should be 7/10 when you retire.

after doing some reading. IMHO its stupid to consider people retired as part of the labor pool.

IMHO a better comparison over time would be to have the pool based on something like a 16-65 age range. and the rate looking at the people employed at those ages.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you are wrong on the participation rate... in your example.

it should be 7/10 when you retire.

after doing some reading. IMHO its stupid to consider people retired as part of the labor pool.

IMHO a better comparison over time would be to have the pool based on something like a 16-65 age range. and the rate looking at the people employed at those ages.

I could have put the whole retirement thing better, yes.

The important thing here is that people who retire are no longer actively looking for work but they are people who COULD work if they absolutely needed to. Therefore they are part of the labor force, but they are not participating.

We use the participating labor force numbers for unemployment because we don't really care if people who don't want to work are working or not (at least in terms of how our job market is). Thus when people say to us that they no longer wish to have a job ever again, we take them out of the denominator for people who are looking or jobs.

 

[michal1980]

I could have put the whole retirement thing better, yes.

The important thing here is that people who retire are no longer actively looking for work but they are people who COULD work if they absolutely needed to. Therefore they are part of the labor force, but they are not participating.

We use the participating labor force numbers for unemployment because we don't really care if people who don't want to work are working or not (at least in terms of how our job market is). Thus when people say to us that they no longer wish to have a job ever again, we take them out of the denominator for people who are looking or jobs.

The problem with the way its currently done, is that over time you are comparing very different groups of people, because the population has changed.

I've found some numbers that compare age groups. IMHO seems a better way of comparing data over the years.

 

[zephyrprime]

Just because the bubble was caused by women's lib doesn't mean it wasn't a bubble. Just because more people want jobs doesn't mean jobs will magically be create for them. Especially when you have things like out-sourcing and automation which will decrease the need for labor.

The only way the increase in employment caused by women's lib would be a bubble would be if women's lib were not a permanent change. There are other phenomenon like automation which you mention which affect the labor participation rate but they are separate, new issues and are unrelated to the cause of the increase in employment which you depict in your chart.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

And I thought everything were up and up, unemployment rate was down but what do we have here?

I'm not surprised, but I've been reading economist Paul Craig Roberts's columns for several years now. The real unemployment number is probably well above 20% (23% according to the Shadow Stats guy).

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

No Jobs for Americans

The Case of the Missing Recovery

More Misleading Official Unemployment Statistics

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not surprised, but I've been reading economist Paul Craig Roberts's columns for several years now. The real unemployment number is probably well above 20% (23% according to the Shadow Stats guy).

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

No Jobs for Americans

The Case of the Missing Recovery

More Misleading Official Unemployment Statistics

Ain't no one going to penetrate his bubble! Two pages of correcting misinformation, educating people on how and why the numbers we use are used and this guy says, nope! Not going to listen to it!

You can fix ignorance but I guess you can't fix stupid!