Unemployment VS. Labor Force Statistics.....Apparent Confusion

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by TheLastBoyScout, Dec 2, 2011.

  1. TheLastBoyScout

    TheLastBoyScout New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    7,830
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Labor Force Statistics are being used right now as a counter-argument against the news that Unemployment can possibly be going down right now as indicated by the unemployment rate.

    Unemployment Rate Dips to 8.6%


    Graphs such as this represent the Labor Force Statistics over time.

    [​IMG]

    The key question here is "What constitutes the Labor Force"?

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques6
    Well, the answer to that is ANYONE over age 16, who is not a) in a nursing home, B) in the military, or C) in prison.


    The takeaway here is that the retired ARE included in Labor Force Statistics. The other important thing to note is that social and demographic changes play a huge role in the swinging of the Labor Force Participation Rate.


    The fluctuations over time represented in the above graph have a lot to do with women entering the workforce in larger numbers in the 1970's - 1980's.....and the tailing off you see in the last few years is due to Baby Boomers Retiring! That dynamic will continue and the Labor Force Participation Rate will continue to dip because of this for several years.


    The Labor Force Participation Rate is NOT the same as Unemployment.



    That completes our lesson for today. Any questions?
     
    Iriemon and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Dan40

    Dan40 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,560
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Number employed Feb 2009, 141,687,000. [Stimulus passed]
    Number employed Nov 2011, 140,580,000

    ONE MILLION, ONE HUNDRED AND SEVEN THOUSAND fewer people have jobs today than when the Stimulus bill wasted nearly a trillion dollars.

    33 months later, STILL 1,107,000 fewer people working.
     
  3. Eighty Deuce

    Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    26,846
    Likes Received:
    543
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not only that, but we have more folks able to enter the work force every month. About 120K more, or 1.6 million per year. That jumps the number not working by 4.5 million. So we actually have over 5.5 million less folks working, as a percent of our expanding population. They have given up. Dropped off the radar.

    Yet the libs want us to believe they decided to be stay-at-home MOms or something, cause hubby is apparently doing better :roll:

    Libs are that stupid, unfortunately.

    And lets go with a grpah that doesn't include Neanderthal times. Just the last 10 years. Gives us a more accurate idea of how bad things have gotten. This ain't the 1950's anymore libs.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,901
    Likes Received:
    10,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great OP. THanks for clearing up that non-sense that is "unemployment statistics".
     
  5. TheLastBoyScout

    TheLastBoyScout New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    7,830
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not only that, but those statistics are a further demonstration of a lack of understanding that Baby Boomers are retiring.....and STILL counted among the Labor Force.

    Less people (among the entire population) as a percent will continue to decline for a few years as this huge demographic "bubble" progresses through time.

    [​IMG]


    The baby boomers reached age 65 (retirement age) starting in 2011....this year. Many already retired a bit early.

    For a decade and a half into the future, less people (as a proportion of the population) will be "unemployed" or not in the the work force.

    This was a demographic and employment statistical certainty, whether the economy was doing poorly, as it is now.....or booming as it might in our wildest fantasy.

    People are apparently uneasy about pointing this out because baby boomers might be offended by bringing this up. But it's not their fault at all, this is just a statistical reality. The population explosion of 60 years ago benefitted the country at a certain period of history......and now, it's going to bite us in the ass for a while.
     
  6. Frowning Loser

    Frowning Loser Banned

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The CONservatives want us to believe that these supposed graphs and charts show data that only applies to the Obama administration. They never apply to Republican economies. So in other words all positive trends under Obama are false.

    You can see the desperation here.
     
  7. Landru Guide Us

    Landru Guide Us Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Demographics and their impact on employment statistics is "nonsense" to the baggers.

    NEXT!
     
  8. Dan40

    Dan40 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,560
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Would you be happier if I said it shows 11 years of one miserable president followed by an even worse president?
    If that helps you, good for you. It doesn't help the country a bit.
    The only good thing about Bush was that he was better than Gore or Kerry. So far there is NO good thing about b.o.. Gore or Kerry would have been better than b.o. and they are as bad as imaginable.

    Happy?
     
  9. Eighty Deuce

    Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    26,846
    Likes Received:
    543
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is false. While the rate of growth of our population is slowing, there cannot be a negative influence in the net labor force until we are in negative population growth, and even then only once the reduced baby output matures to the age of 16.

    All of the whacky math and logic of the Left here is absurd. Further,when one looks at the LFPR going back to the 40's, the downturns correspond with Recessions, in that getting a job is harder, more folks are unable to, and eventually drop off the radar when UI is exhausted.

    Further direct evidence of the libs who support your "logic" in fact being uninformed is that we have a huge rise in food stamp usage concurrent with this decline in the LFPR. Were it folks retiring and/or dying as you ASSume, this would not be the case. Food stamps document that it is real people. Still living and eating. In record numbers.
     

Share This Page