Unemployment ticks down to 7.7%! 246k New Private Sector Jobs! Broad Based Recovery!!

[OverVolt]

All I'm trying to show is that there are alot of "discouraged" workers who couldn't find a job so the unemployment rate is higher than the 7% they quote.

I don't see it as a coincidence that since 2008 the number of people "not in the labor force" skyrocketed but I guess you do. This is a similar trend to the number of people now claiming disability.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-27/2013-is-the-year-to-go-to-work-not-go-on-disability.html

The disabled are part of the far larger number of Americans who have left the labor force altogether since the recession, and who don’t seem to be coming back. About 88.9 million people in the U.S. are now out of the labor force, 2.4 million more than a year ago and 11.4 million more than in 2006. Thirty years ago, there was a 40-to-1 ratio between the total labor force and those workers receiving Social Security disability payments. Today that ratio is less than 18-to-1.

We always had the same number of disabled workers its just that before 2008 they were able to find work and now many are forced onto the government dole. It doesn't really paint a pretty picture of the workforce so I'm not convinced by some measly ~300k jobs print. People are just too excited about it because its coinciding with the market doing well. IN REALITY the job market is still not that great. Otherwise there wouldn't be record numbers of people on food stamps, claiming disability, welfare, etc. Happily "not in the labor force."

 

[First]

All I'm trying to show is that there are alot of "discouraged" workers who couldn't find a job so the unemployment rate is higher than the 7% they quote.

No, it isn't. I'm not sure what people don't understand about the unemployment rate; it measures exactly what it says it measure. If you want measures that include all those other factors, including discouraged workers, then look at U6. Until then, people will look at the headline number for what it is. Anyone assigning extra meaning to it is doing so from a position of ignorance.

I don't see it as a coincidence that since 2008 the number of people "not in the labor force" skyrocketed but I guess you do.

There's nothing particularly difficult to understand about it; people at or near retirement decided to retire at an increasing rate as the first baby boomers started to reach retirement age (the first baby boomer to take out Social Security was 2010). That, combined with a crashing market, incentivized more boomers on the cusp of retirement to simply go ahead and retire. There's nothing difficult to understand there.

This is a similar trend to the number of people now claiming disability.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-27/2013-is-the-year-to-go-to-work-not-go-on-disability.html

Disability has been expanded to include a lot more people who weren't eligible before; they're not disabled by the definition of the law in 1970, but they are today. So comparing SS disability numbers from 1970 to 2012 is stupid beyond words.

We always had the same number of disabled workers its just that before 2008 they were able to find work and now many are forced onto the government dole. It doesn't really paint a pretty picture of the workforce so I'm not convinced by some measly ~300k jobs print. People are just too excited about it because its coinciding with the market doing well. IN REALITY the job market is still not that great. Otherwise there wouldn't be record numbers of people on food stamps, claiming disability, welfare, etc. Happily "not in the labor force."

There are always record numbers of people on foodstamps, disability, welfare, etc. as the population grows. It's a meaningless statement.

 

[OverVolt]

people at or near retirement decided to retire at an increasing rate as the first baby boomers started to reach retirement age

Everything I read points to the boomers not retiring as expected.
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/postponing-retirement-indefinitely/

More than a third of adults near retirement age — 35 percent — said last year that they simply don’t expect to retire. That was up from just 29 percent two years earlier.

More than four in 10 of these “pre-retirees” who don’t expect to retire say it is because they are financially unable to do so. They cite the need for extra income and the maintenance of employer benefits as the main reasons for continuing to work.

“There is a core group of people earning a paycheck who feel, for whatever reason, they aren’t going to be able to support themselves in their retirement years,” said Carol Bogosian, an actuary and retirement expert.

There are always record numbers of people on foodstamps, disability, welfare, etc. as the population grows. It's a meaningless statement.

FWIW the ratio of foodstamps/population is also at all time highs.

You are however very good at PR spin. But it holds no water.

I did omit disability because you cited disability requirement changes but I'm sure that could be debunked if I looked into it further. Remember the keyword with me in "in reality" because you just parrot back alot of PR spin and have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[First]

people at or near retirement decided to retire at an increasing rate as the first baby boomers started to reach retirement age

Everything I read points to the boomers not retiring as expected.
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/postponing-retirement-indefinitely/

Those are boomers with jobs, not boomers who lost their jobs in 08 and 09 and just simply decided to retire since they were already 59-65 years old.

FWIW the ratio of foodstamps/population is also at all time highs.

You are however very good at PR spin. But it holds no water.

I did omit disability because you cited disability requirement changes but I'm sure that could be debunked if I looked into it further. Remember the keyword with me in "in reality" because you just parrot back alot of PR spin and have no idea what you are talking about.

Yeah, again, you can't even cite a credible source for your food stamps claims. Come on, trivisonno.com? Gimme a break.

SS disability rules have changed over time, it takes a couple Google searches to confirm it. Including everything from Eisenhower's changes in 56, to LBJ's in the mid-60's, to Carter in the late 70's, to Reagan in 86. All aimed at dealing with shortfalls due to expanding coverage provisions or inflation in the 70's or a whole host of other reasons.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/lbjdib1.html 1963-1968
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n3/v66n3p1.html - a full history