517,000 jobs created in january

Should we also look up the labor participation rate or no? Its best to look at both figures combined to draw a more accurate picture. Thats what we want right? To be accurate? Hopefully both numbers are good.
 
Stone said:
Should we also look up the labor participation rate or no? Its best to look at both figures combined to draw a more accurate picture. Thats what we want right? To be accurate? Hopefully both numbers are good.
Click to expand...

Much better than when Trump was President.
 
LPR is up,.....that is a very good thing. Are basement dwellers like LV FINALLY realizing they have to throw down the X box controller and get off their dead asses and go to work? They have a lot to pay for,....get to work and pay those taxes bitches! :laugh:
 
Funny how when faced with near starvation all of a sudden certain segments of society can somehow find jobs that they couldnt find before.......LOVE IT! GET TO WORK! :laugh:

:magagrin:
 
Stone said:
Should we also look up the labor participation rate or no? Its best to look at both figures combined to draw a more accurate picture. Thats what we want right? To be accurate? Hopefully both numbers are good.
Click to expand...

Let's make it simple for you. The employment numbers that we use are using the same system that we have used for decades. Their value is that using the same system allows us to easily compare month-to-month and year-to-year employment rates. The Labor Dept has several measurement systems with lots of different variables. However, we use the same one we always have to see quickly if employment is going up or down.
 
Stone said:
Should we also look up the labor participation rate or no? Its best to look at both figures combined to draw a more accurate picture. Thats what we want right? To be accurate? Hopefully both numbers are good.
Click to expand...

No. Because it includes people who have no interest in working. Here is the reality of the labor force participation rate. It has been shrinking for white men for decades.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300028

So the labor force participation rate was being boosted by women getting jobs. In recent years, fewer women are working, fewer teenagers are working, and the baby boomers turned retirement age. So of course the rate was going to go down. It went down because people VOLUNTARILY chose not to work.

The Labor participation rate is a canard that the right has been spouting off about since Obama. But almost no one who cites the figure even understands what it means. So it is a meaningless statistic at this point. Unemployment is at a 50 year low, and I will guarantee you I will see zerohedge cited, someone will claim U-3 is not accurate (of course it is, it is calculated objectively) and whine about inflation, because at this point, the right is pulling against American. It's sad.
 
Nordberg said:
Let's make it simple for you. The employment numbers that we use are using the same system that we have used for decades. Their value is that using the same system allows us to easily compare month-to-month and year-to-year employment rates. The Labor Dept has several measurement systems with lots of different variables. However, we use the same one we always have to see quickly if employment is going up or down.
Click to expand...

GREAT! Im just glad that a lot of these people who could just never seem to find jobs before now have. Thats wonderful! :cool:
 
Concart said:
No. Because it includes people who have no interest in working. Here is the reality of the labor force participation rate. It has been shrinking for white men for decades.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300028

So the labor force participation rate was being boosted by women getting jobs. In recent years, fewer women are working, fewer teenagers are working, and the baby boomers turned retirement age. So of course the rate was going to go down. It went down because people VOLUNTARILY chose not to work.

The Labor participation rate is a canard that the right has been spouting off about since Obama. But almost no one who cites the figure even understands what it means. So it is a meaningless statistic at this point. Unemployment is at a 50 year low, and I will guarantee you I will see zerohedge cited, someone will claim U-3 is not accurate (of course it is, it is calculated objectively) and whine about inflation, because at this point, the right is pulling against American. It's sad.
Click to expand...

As I said,.....Im VERY happy that more people are employed now. Thats how it should be.
 
Stone said:
As I said,.....Im VERY happy that more people are employed now. Thats how it should be.
Click to expand...

So it's up. The fact that I didn't bother to look tells you how I feel about the rate. But it is good news. I'd like to look at the crosstabs and see where the jobs are being created.
 
I'm curious...

In December the unemployment rate using the same bullshit metrics was 3.5%. In January it fell slightly to 3.4% The DoL claims 517,000 new jobs were created. That means for a .1% increase in employment 517,000 jobs were added. If you calculate this out, it would mean that 52 million (give or take) jobs were available in the US total (99.9 x 517000). Yet, the same people are telling us that there are about 155 million jobs in America right now...

Methinks that the people pushing these numbers are making a lot of shit up...
 
Nordberg said:
Let's make it simple for you. The employment numbers that we use are using the same system that we have used for decades. Their value is that using the same system allows us to easily compare month-to-month and year-to-year employment rates. The Labor Dept has several measurement systems with lots of different variables. However, we use the same one we always have to see quickly if employment is going up or down.
Click to expand...

The only time the employment statistics are questioned by Reichwingers is when there's a (D) in the White House. Otherwise they're accepted as golden -- at least if they're trending up. Remember how the MAGATs bleated that under #TRE45ON, unemployment for non-whites was historically low? Guess what? It *still* is. Oops.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I'm curious...

In December the unemployment rate using the same bullshit metrics was 3.5%. In January it fell slightly to 3.4% The DoL claims 517,000 new jobs were created. That means for a .1% increase in employment 517,000 jobs were added. If you calculate this out, it would mean that 52 million (give or take) jobs were available in the US total (99.9 x 517000). Yet, the same people are telling us that there are about 155 million jobs in America right now...

Methinks that the people pushing these numbers are making a lot of shit up...
Click to expand...

And even more suspicious -- they only make up the good numbers when a Democrat is POTUS. Otherwise they're all fake. :rolleyes:
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
The only time the employment statistics are questioned by Reichwingers is when there's a (D) in the White House. Otherwise they're accepted as golden -- at least if they're trending up. Remember how the MAGATs bleated that under #TRE45ON, unemployment for non-whites was historically low? Guess what? It *still* is. Oops.
Click to expand...

I question them all the time, and have consistently done so on this board for the sort of reason I gave above.
 
Hello Concart,

Concart said:
No. Because it includes people who have no interest in working. Here is the reality of the labor force participation rate. It has been shrinking for white men for decades.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300028

So the labor force participation rate was being boosted by women getting jobs. In recent years, fewer women are working, fewer teenagers are working, and the baby boomers turned retirement age. So of course the rate was going to go down. It went down because people VOLUNTARILY chose not to work.

The Labor participation rate is a canard that the right has been spouting off about since Obama. But almost no one who cites the figure even understands what it means. So it is a meaningless statistic at this point. Unemployment is at a 50 year low, and I will guarantee you I will see zerohedge cited, someone will claim U-3 is not accurate (of course it is, it is calculated objectively) and whine about inflation, because at this point, the right is pulling against American. It's sad.
Click to expand...

I bet even more people would be working and the federal budget would look better if the minimum wage and taxes on the rich were both raised.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Concart,



I bet even more people would be working and the federal budget would look better if the minimum wage and taxes on the rich were both raised.
Click to expand...

Agree. Want to put people back to work? Make it worthwhile. A single mom with two kids can't afford to pay day care and lose any benefits they might have. Raise the minimum wage, provide free child care for working mothers, and they will go back to work. Which is good. But the GOP is not interested in that approach. Instead, they want to give money to rich people who will supposedly create jobs. They never have and they never will. Instead, that approach just adds to the national debt and lines the pockets of shareholders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top