Gallup unemployment continues to fall: New low of 7.3%.

LFPR = employment

Your title says the drop was to 7.3%. Last month it was 8.1%. 8.1 - 7.3 = .8.

And not answered.

How does .1% = .8%?

 

False. Labor force participation rate is a measure of how much of the population participates in the labor force.

Employment is the number of people who are employed.

Two different things.

OK

Answered in post #194

 

False. The LFPR is the percentage of people eligible for employment who are actually employed.
So, LFPR = employment.


Now, how does .1% = .8%?

 

Wrong again.

Labor force participation rate: The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.

http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#L

I can start to understand why conservatives like Keymanjim hold the beliefs they do when they simply misunderstand or are ignorant of so much they think they know.

I chaulk it up mostly to them gullibly believing RW propaganda.

Answered in post #194

 

You are saying the same thing that I am. You just making it sound like it's something new.

Now, how does .1% = .8%? Stop avoiding the question.

 

No, I'm not. You said: The LFPR is the percentage of people eligible for employment who are actually employed.

The truth is that LFPR means "The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population." Contrary to your assertion, it has nothing to do with the number of people employed.

Therefore, you claim that employment went up only 0.1% based on the LFPR is erroneous, as is your question based upon that false premise.

I answered it. Stop asking bogus questions.

 

Noty for the record, the quote of my post in Keymanjim's post was basardized by him and is not my post.

Please don't do that if you don't want me to do it to yours. Thanks.

 

Noty for the record, the quote of my post in Keymanjim's post aboe was bastardized by him, and is not my post.

Please don't do that if you don't want me to do it to yours. Thanks.

 

True unemployment is 11%.....Nation Wide.....average! ...and Bonzo extended it with his compensation plan...Government causes unemployment! You can stay home and make more money not working than you can on a job.

 

It's the same thing, you nimrod.

How does .1% = .8%? If you can't answer just say so.

 

How does .1% = .8%? If you can't answer just say so.[/QUOTE]

Resorting to name calling when you've been proved flat out wrong. Gee, how unusual.

 

How does .1% = .8%? If you can't answer just say so.[/QUOTE]

Resorting to name calling when you've been proved flat out wrong. Gee, how unusual.

I'll trust that most of our other members are astute enough to understand that Keymanjim's erroneous claim that the Labor Force Participation Rate

"is the percentage of people eligible for employment who are actually employed" ​

is not the same as the official definition, which is

"The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population" ​

and can also understand that the LFPR is therefore is not the same as employment.

 

How long did it take you big State apologists to come up with "the pass the buck generation" ?
We never wanted your stupid spending. You can keep your little buzz phrases to yourself and stop trying to pass your turd to us.

 

What Keymanjim is confusing, though he won't admit it, is the "Employment-population ratio" with the "Labor Force Participation Rate."

The LFPR, as I've proved with my link to the BLS glossory, is "The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population."

The "Civilian noninstitutional population" is defined: "Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces."

http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#C

"The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary"

http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#L

Thus the labor force is all people who either are working or want to work and don't have a job.

Thus, the "Labor force participation rate" is defined as "the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population." That ratio shows, of all the people who could work (over 16, etc.), the percentage who are working or want to work. Contrary to Keymanjim's claims, it has nothing to do with the number who are employed because it also includes people who are unemployed.

What Keymanjim is confused about in his thinking (giving him the benefit of the doubt that there is thinking going on) is the the LFPR versus the "Employment-population ratio". That is "the proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population aged 16 years and over that is employed."

http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#E

That ration *does* show the percentage of the total possible employed population (not just those who have or want a job) that are employed.

That ration can be found in the household survey database, here: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

And that database show that from August to September, the ration increased from 58.3% to 58.7%. That is the increase in the percentation of the civilian population that became employed last month.

And that still wouldn't be equivalent to employment or an employment rate which would be the converse of the unemployment rate, and which is a ration based on the labor force (those who want to work) and not the civilian noninstitutional population (all those able to work).

But despite me explaning all this, who will give me odds that Keymanjim will ask me the same stupid bogus question about "How does .1% = .8%?"

 

whew ! What a relief. For a second there I thought you said the stock market was back up to 2008 levels.

 

I don't know. I'm the only one I've seen use it.

I came up with it during the era of the passage of the Bush tax cuts, a reflection of the baby boomers who elect tax cutting panders (and spenders) to enrich themselves and pass the buck of the cost of their own government to the next generation.

The are also call the "me" generation and "baby boomers". As a group, probably the most spoiled, overpampered, selfish, and destructive thing to hit America.

 

I don't think we want that.

 

It's no wonder that you can't answer you really do live in your own world.

A=A Simple, easy to understand.

.1% =/= .8% no matter how hard your try to make it so.

You can't even understand that the "civilian noninstitutional population" is the same as "people eligible for employment".


Learn remedial math.
[video=youtube;M9JEPeeohYs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9JEPeeohYs[/video]

 

Show us the number, this isn't kindergarten anymore. You provide the information, its up to you to show us, not for us to have to go look it up for your stupid ass bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Depends on how you define "true unemployment". But the standard, which it has been for decades, is U-3, which is currently at 7.8%.

 

Who claimed is was?

What is bogus is your assertion that employment only increased by .1%.

I understand that perfectly.

Why would I need to do that? My math is fine.

What you need is remedial reading to improve your comprehension.

What you don't understand is that "labor force" =/= people employed.

 

Fine, be a dick if you want.

I posted the links confirming my numbers. I'll explain the links to any other member who needs help understanding it.

 

You did. When you claimed unemployment was down to 7.3%

The decrease in the labor force participation rate.

Clearly you do not.

Clearly it isn't.

I'm not the one that doesn't get that we were posting the same thing worded differently.


You also failed to watch the video.

 

1) I didn't claim that, Gallup did.

2) That is not the same as claiming ".1% =/= .8%"

Wrong again. It increased last month. But what about it?

Of course I do.

Feel free to quote my post you claim that my math is faulty.

Or let me guess, just more baseless bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from you.

You're the one who doesn't get that we are not posting the same thing.

You're the one who doesn't understand is that "labor force" =/= people employed.

You failed to read post #214.

 

Here's a nice example of how an unemployment rate can drop without adding a single job.

Start with a labor pool of 100 with 20 persons unemployed. rate =20%

Disqualify 10 of the jobless from the sample population because they have been jobless for too long.
We now have 10 "unemployed" in a population of 90, for a new unemployment rate of 11.11%.

Just like magic.