Romney v. Obama - Predictions

In January, 2.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
(See table A-16.)

link
 
By the by, here's the BLS explanation:

Effective with data for January 2012, updated population estimates which reflect the results of Census 2010 have been used in the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new information and assumptions about the growth of the population during the decade. The change in population reflected in the new estimates results from the introduction of the Census 2010 count as the new population base, adjustments for net international migration, updated vital statistics and other information, and some methodological changes in the estimation process. The vast majority of the population change, however, is due to the change in base population from Census 2000 to Census 2010.

In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household survey estimates for December 2011 and earlier months. To show the impact of the population adjustment, however, differences in selected December 2011 labor force series based on the old and new population estimates are shown in table B.

The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3 percentage point. This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force participation than the general population.

Data users are cautioned that these annual population adjustments affect the comparability of household data series over time. Table C shows the effect of the introduction of new population estimates on the comparison of selected labor force measures between December 2011 and January 2012. Additional information on the population adjustments and their effect on national labor force estimates is available at www.bls.gov/cps/cps12adj.pdf.
Click to expand...

So, no, 1.2. million people didn't drop out in one month. Instead, the change is the result of population changes from 2000 through 2010.
 
Yurt said:
then i'm sure you can explain what about the note makes you right.....
Click to expand...

Right...take the time to explain myself so you can ignore the bulk of my comments and instead fixate on some miniscule grammatical anomaly to claim I was wrong about it all...

Not today Skippy!
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
By the by, here's the BLS explanation:



So, no, 1.2. million people didn't drop out in one month. Instead, the change is the result of population changes from 2000 through 2010.
Click to expand...

It won't matter...I gave them the "plain English" version as opposed to the "official" version and they just chose to ignore the facts right in front of them.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Right...take the time to explain myself so you can ignore the bulk of my comments and instead fixate on some miniscule grammatical anomaly to claim I was wrong about it all...

Not today Skippy!
Click to expand...

thats what i thought, you have no clue how the note makes you right. so instead you will just insult and whine.

LOL
 
consequently, |
| household survey data for January 2012 will not be directly |
| comparable with that for December 2011 or earlier periods. A |
| table showing the effects of the new controls on the major labor |
| force series will be included in the January 2012 release.

i stand corrected
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
By the by, here's the BLS explanation:



So, no, 1.2. million people didn't drop out in one month. Instead, the change is the result of population changes from 2000 through 2010.
Click to expand...

In January, 2.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
(See table A-16.)

link
 
icedancer2theend said:
In January, 2.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
(See table A-16.)

link
Click to expand...


Congratulations on discovering a fact that the rest of us were well aware of before Republicans decided to look for reasons to proclaim that declining unemployment figures under Obama don't really count.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Another perfect example of your inability to deal with facts.
Click to expand...


Someone has an inability to deal with the fact, but it ain't me. By the way, here's the chart for U-6 unemployment, the broadest measure. No matter how you slice it, the job market is improving significantly. Just deal with it. I'd recommend taking the cue from your party leaders and fighting culture war battles instead of economic ones.

fredgraph.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top