U.S. jobless claims fall near five-year low - thank you Obama!

MORE ARE LEAVING THE LABOR FORCE.

You can't add millions of more workers, add not enough jobs to keep up with the increase in population, and believe that unemployment is going down.

Its the labor participation rate that is going down.

Silly libs

 

that was true last month, but not true over the past few years.

1) Since 2010 we have been adding more than enough jobs to keep up with population increase, and 2) unemployment is a function of how many people want a job.

So what?

It only seems that way to the ignorant.

 

Actually I think population is growing faster than labor force. I might be wrong though. I'll look it up and come back.

Yep. It is...

Jan 2009 through today

Population:
234739 to 244995
Growth 4.4%

Labor force:
154232 to 155028
Growth .5%

And in the last year...
Population:
242269 to 244995
Growth 1.1%

Labor force:
154356 to 155028
Growth .4%

 

Population has been growing faster than the labor force, since about 2000.

 

Not true, Jan 2003 - Jan 2007, labor force grew slightly faster.
4.8% to 4.9%

However, the more recent trend is far worse.

 

Year - Civ Pop - Labor force
Jan 2003 219897 145937
Jan 2007 230650 153144

Civ Pop 4.89%
Labor Force 4.93%

You are correct, the labor force grew slightly faster than the civ population in that time period.

I expect the trend of the civ pop growing faster than the labor force to continue as more boomer retire.

 

If its the boomers causing the labor force to go down, how come those 55+ are the ones getting all the jobs? Are they retiring and working simultaneously? Do you have BLS numbers to back up this position? Or is another media meme? Or did you mean, going forward? The last 3-4 years are just abnormal?

 

I'm not sure why your stat would contradict it. Folks usually retire in their 60s, not 55.

But I meant going forward. The last 3-4 years we've had the biggest recession in 80 years, and no doubt some left the workforce to pursue and education or decided to stay at home because of the poor employment situation as well as retiring. The first boomers have started hitting retirement age in the past couple years.

 

From the charts I've seen, the 55-64 are getting more jobs than any other 10 year group, and the 65+ group has been entering the labor force, and working more quickly than the younger groups. I just think its silly to say the retirees are going to decrease the labor force, if there really aren't statistics to show that's the case. Do you have the numbers to prove it? I mean numbers, not projections.

 

First, Obama has done nothing to create any long-term and sustainable jobs in the private sector. If anyone can point to an action Obama has taken that creates sustainable jobs in the private sector...then please share?

Here's what is creating 'temporary' jobs...Obama spending about $1 trillion in debt money each year on the military and Homeland Security. Take away this spending then calculate how many jobs would have been created in the private sector? I'm guessing the answer will be about 10 million fewer jobs.

The root issue here is government spending out of control! Stop the out of control spending and the temporary jobs go away...

 

Could you refer me to the post where I said that? I don't think I said anything about it. I think it is silly to accuse me for something I didn't say.

 

Sorry, I was referring to this point.

Why do you think that, when the more recent trends show the opposite, that really, those in retirement age are staying in the labor force more than the younger groups are entering?

 

Because the baby boom generation is a huge bubble in the population curve and huge numbers of boomers are going to be reaching retirement age over the next few years.

 

Oh no I get that, but just because they are of retirement age, doesn't mean they will. I mean, 70 is the new 60, and lots of these people lost ton of wealth in the great recession, so they have to continue to work beyond their best years.

I guess, I just let the numbers speak for the themselves, and the numbers tell me, that the older generation is working more, and later, and that they are entering faster than the younger generation, and nothing is in the pipeline to change that fact for now.

The fact that they are "boomers" is completely irrelevant.

 

Where are you getting the numbers on different age groups' labor force participation?

I disagree. While older folks may work a little longer than in the past, old age will catch up with them and they'll drop out of the work force. I suspect we will see more of it now that the stock markets have recovered from their pre-recession levels and folks are seeing their retirement portfolios looking a lot stronger than they were a couple years ago.

 

Just look at the BLS.

Jan 2012 to today

All age groups
Labor Force: 154356 to 155028 = .4% growth
Population: 242269 to 244995 = 1.1% growth

Basically this means, population outgrowing labor force, in groups overall.

65+ age group:
Labor Force: 7396 to 8064 = 9% growth
Population: 41085 to 42986 = 4.6% growth

The 65+ labor force growth is faster than their population growth. This proves they are entering the workforce faster than everyone else.

Wow, look, the 65+ labor force grew 668k. That's nearly the entire labor force growth in the last year (672k)

The entire labor force growth was only in the age group 65+. WTF

Could be. Good point.

 

I'm sorry. I meant the link for the data you are quoting.

 

It was that BLS household survey link. I was looking for the multiple jobs worker thing and I saw it in there.
This is it.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln

 

Can you give me the URL for the specific data?

 

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln

You have to select different age groups on the left. Lots of data!

 

I think I get what you need Iriemon.

These series:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS10000000
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU00000097
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU01000097

 

Dude it's a picture of what exactly? Where is the information on what those numbers represent? All the picture shows is some group numbers separated by year and date. Numbers representing what exactly? The title says "employment, hours, and earnings from the current employment statistics survey (national)"..

Now remember what I said... About it returning to the levels it was before he took office, being some how an improvement? It's not, it's actually less than what it was when he took office. You are taking the low end and the high end and claiming a net gain. What gain, we are down now compared to then just as I said...LOL

 

Dude, it's a picture of the BLS database output which you would have seen had you followed my simple instruction that only you and one other guy have been unable to figure out so far.

The numbers are, as it states, "Total Private" employment, in thousands. So if you look in the column under March for the row 2013, it shows there are 113.330 million private sector jobs in March 2013.

Dude, no, you're wrong again. LOL. Obama took office in Jan 2009, when there were 111.048 million private sector jobs. It dropped down to 106.850 million in Feb 2010. It is now at 113.330 million. That is over 2 million more than when Obama took office in the midst of the worst recession in 80 years.

 

It still does not account for the jobs that need to be created for population growth, the reason we are still 8 million plus jobs in the hole.