Big O hits it on jObs

Dr. Jones wrote:America has near record 5.6 million job openings
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/09/news/economy/america-5-6-million-record-job-openings/

A little more insight to the legitimacy of the jobless rate, which finally dropped below 5%.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:America has near record 5.6 million job openings
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/09/news/economy/america-5-6-million-record-job-openings/

A little more insight to the legitimacy of the jobless rate, which finally dropped below 5%.

“There is no joy in this month’s jobs report and no sign that things have turned around. The recovery isn’t happening, it isn’t expanding and the labor participation rate is holding. While wages are up a bit, it isn’t enough to make an impact.” - Gary Chaison, Professor Graduate School of Management, Clark University

From year 2000 to 2016, the working Employed population increased by 10% compared to a 40% rise in the non-working U6/NiLF population.  As shown above, the non-working population exceeded the working population during the 2007-2009 Great Recession. Since year 2000, the Not-in-Labor-Force cadre grew from 68.7 million to 94.1 million, an increase of 25.4 million citizens, who often become dependent on public and familial forms of financial assistance.  Based on current trends, the Not-in-Labor-Force population will outnumber the private sector working population by 2024.

From a Jobenomics perspective, unemployment should be defined as all able-bodied adult American citizens who are capable of working but are not currently employed full or part-time.  The ability to work should be the determining factor for unemployment as opposed to whether or not a person is looking for work.

Sooner or later, the American public will figure out that it is theoretically possible for the United States to have a zero rate of unemployment while simultaneously having zero people employed in the labor force.  The reason for this disquieting statement involves how government measures unemployment.  To be classified as unemployed, one must be looking for work.  Able-bodied Americans who quit looking and voluntarily depart the workforce are classified in the nebulous and obscure Not-in-Labor-Force.

Jobenomics contends that all able-bodied Americans who can work but don’t work, regardless if they are looking or not, should be considered “Functionally Unemployed”.  Functional is defined as capable of working.  An able-bodied adult who is capable of working but chooses not to work should be considered unemployed for the same reason that “discouraged”, “marginally attached” and “part-time workers for economic reasons” are included in the BLS U4, U5 and U6 unemployment categories.  

Dr. Jones wrote:It's good to know that Obama is on the job.   Republicans are too busy comparing penis size to worry about job creation.  You remember who our last big job creator was?   Bill Clinton.

U.S. unemployment rate remained at 4.9% and employers added 242,000 jobs in February.
www.cnn.com

nightlight88 wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:It's good to know that Obama is on the job.   Republicans are too busy comparing penis size to worry about job creation.  You remember who our last big job creator was?   Bill Clinton.

U.S. unemployment rate remained at 4.9% and employers added 242,000 jobs in February.
www.cnn.com

What exactly did Blowjobbilly do to CREATE jobs?

The best thing he did was leave things alone while he was poking everything that walked except Hillary.

Dr. Jones wrote:It's good to know that Obama is on the job.   Republicans are too busy comparing penis size to worry about job creation.  You remember who our last big job creator was?   Bill Clinton.

U.S. unemployment rate remained at 4.9% and employers added 242,000 jobs in February.
www.cnn.com

Dr. Jones wrote:Mmmm, mmm, mmm.... Another great jobs month.  Not to mention the September jobs # got fixed.  If you're voting for a party instead of a candidate on Tuesday, there's only one sensible choice.

   


U.S. unemployment falls to 4.9% before election
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/index.html

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Mmmm, mmm, mmm.... Another great jobs month.  Not to mention the September jobs # got fixed.  If you're voting for a party instead of a candidate on Tuesday, there's only one sensible choice.

   


U.S. unemployment falls to 4.9% before election
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/index.html

More BULLSHIT from the biggest lying piece of dogshit on this forum.  I hope nobody even bothers to counter this stupid statement by the mental midget.  The useful idiots on this forum are neither open minded nor intelligent enough to understand any relatives facts that counter this BOGUS campaign rhetoric.  It is just more BS  from the Soros funded website that the useful idiot were instructed to spread around.

Dr. Jones wrote:
Are you disputing the jobs report?

Dr. Jones wrote:Mmmm, mmm, mmm.... Another great jobs month.  Not to mention the September jobs # got fixed.  If you're voting for a party instead of a candidate on Tuesday, there's only one sensible choice.

   


U.S. unemployment falls to 4.9% before election
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/index.html

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Mmmm, mmm, mmm.... Another great jobs month.  Not to mention the September jobs # got fixed.  If you're voting for a party instead of a candidate on Tuesday, there's only one sensible choice.

   


U.S. unemployment falls to 4.9% before election
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/index.html

More BULLSHIT from the biggest lying piece of dogshit on this forum.  I hope nobody even bothers to counter this stupid statement by the mental midget.  The useful idiots on this forum are neither open minded nor intelligent enough to understand any relatives facts that counter this BOGUS campaign rhetoric.  It is just more BS  from the Soros funded website that the useful idiot were instructed to spread around.

Are you disputing the jobs report?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Mmmm, mmm, mmm.... Another great jobs month.  Not to mention the September jobs # got fixed.  If you're voting for a party instead of a candidate on Tuesday, there's only one sensible choice.

   


U.S. unemployment falls to 4.9% before election
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/index.html

And 94,609,000 people aren't in the labor force, second highest number on record. Employment growth is averaging only 181,000 new jobs per month in 2016, well below the average monthly increase of 229,000 in 2015. Thanks Obummer.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Mmmm, mmm, mmm.... Another great jobs month.  Not to mention the September jobs # got fixed.  If you're voting for a party instead of a candidate on Tuesday, there's only one sensible choice.

   


U.S. unemployment falls to 4.9% before election
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/index.html

And 94,609,000 people aren't in the labor force, second highest number on record. Employment growth is averaging only 181,000 new jobs per month in 2016, well below the average monthly increase of 229,000 in 2015. Thanks Obummer.

Maybe, but as you pointed out, we have a large segment of our population,  the baby boomers, dropping out of the workforce.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Mmmm, mmm, mmm.... Another great jobs month.  Not to mention the September jobs # got fixed.  If you're voting for a party instead of a candidate on Tuesday, there's only one sensible choice.

   


U.S. unemployment falls to 4.9% before election
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/index.html

And 94,609,000 people aren't in the labor force, second highest number on record. Employment growth is averaging only 181,000 new jobs per month in 2016, well below the average monthly increase of 229,000 in 2015. Thanks Obummer.

Maybe, but as you pointed out, we have a large segment of our population,  the baby boomers, dropping out of the workforce.

Retirees only comprise 43% or so of the people not in the work force. The drop in unemployment is coming from people leaving the work force and not because they are finding new jobs. They key figure is job creation which has been anemic. Not only is job creation running below historic averages it isn't even keeping up with increases in population which is in decline itself.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Mmmm, mmm, mmm.... Another great jobs month.  Not to mention the September jobs # got fixed.  If you're voting for a party instead of a candidate on Tuesday, there's only one sensible choice.

   


U.S. unemployment falls to 4.9% before election
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/index.html

And 94,609,000 people aren't in the labor force, second highest number on record. Employment growth is averaging only 181,000 new jobs per month in 2016, well below the average monthly increase of 229,000 in 2015. Thanks Obummer.

Maybe, but as you pointed out, we have a large segment of our population,  the baby boomers, dropping out of the workforce.

Retirees only comprise 43% or so of the people not in the work force. The drop in unemployment is coming from people leaving the work force and not because they are finding new jobs. They key figure is job creation which has been anemic. Not only is job creation running below historic averages it isn't even  keeping up with increases in population which is in decline itself.  

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Mmmm, mmm, mmm.... Another great jobs month.  Not to mention the September jobs # got fixed.  If you're voting for a party instead of a candidate on Tuesday, there's only one sensible choice.

   


U.S. unemployment falls to 4.9% before election
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/index.html

And 94,609,000 people aren't in the labor force, second highest number on record. Employment growth is averaging only 181,000 new jobs per month in 2016, well below the average monthly increase of 229,000 in 2015. Thanks Obummer.

Maybe, but as you pointed out, we have a large segment of our population,  the baby boomers, dropping out of the workforce.

Retirees only comprise 43% or so of the people not in the work force. The drop in unemployment is coming from people leaving the work force and not because they are finding new jobs. They key figure is job creation which has been anemic. Not only is job creation running below historic averages it isn't even  keeping up with increases in population which is in decline itself.  

I'm wondering which data set exactly it is that you are referring to?  Certainly not job participation.



As I've said before, participation is trending down in large part to our aging population.  Even aside from that though, look at the graph through the Clinton years.  We all know job growth was phenomenal during the Clinton years.  By your rational, participation rate should have been through the roof well, but it wasn't.  The two, while in some respects related, are, controlled their own dynamics.  What worked to Reagan's benefit has worked against Obama least in regard to statistical data.  I understand you really, really want Obama's job numbers to reflect failure, but it's just not going to work out for you.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Mmmm, mmm, mmm.... Another great jobs month.  Not to mention the September jobs # got fixed.  If you're voting for a party instead of a candidate on Tuesday, there's only one sensible choice.

   


U.S. unemployment falls to 4.9% before election
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/index.html

And 94,609,000 people aren't in the labor force, second highest number on record. Employment growth is averaging only 181,000 new jobs per month in 2016, well below the average monthly increase of 229,000 in 2015. Thanks Obummer.

Maybe, but as you pointed out, we have a large segment of our population,  the baby boomers, dropping out of the workforce.

Retirees only comprise 43% or so of the people not in the work force. The drop in unemployment is coming from people leaving the work force and not because they are finding new jobs. They key figure is job creation which has been anemic. Not only is job creation running below historic averages it isn't even  keeping up with increases in population which is in decline itself.  

I'm wondering which data set exactly it is that you are referring to?  Certainly not job participation.



As I've said before, participation is trending down in large part to our aging population.  Even aside from that though, look at the graph through the Clinton years.  We all know job growth was phenomenal during the Clinton years.  By your rational, participation rate should have been through the roof well, but it wasn't.  The two, while in some respects related, are, controlled their own dynamics.  What worked to Reagan's benefit has worked against Obama least in regard to statistical data.  I understand you really, really want Obama's job numbers to reflect failure, but it's just not going to work out for you.

As I stated, retirees make up only 43% of people not in the work force. You can't see the forest for the trees on your chart that only goes back to 1978. Here's a chart going back to the 50's. Note that the go go years of the Clinton economy represents the zenith of labor participation rate. So yes the participation rate was "through the roof".

Skeptical wrote:
"Workers are eligible for unemployment compensation only if they are temporarily out of work through no fault of their own."  in other words these people may collect unemployment benefits assuming the state of residence requirements are met

Using SEASONAL ADJUSTED numbers from http://www.oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp

Week ending 10/01/2016 there were 246,000 INITIAL CLAIMS for unemployment benefits
Week ending 10/08/2016 there were 247,000 INITIAL CLAIMS for unemployment benefits
Simple addition indicates 493,000 people lost jobs during first two weeks in October 2016

and as of Week ending 10/08/2016 there were 2,057,500 continuing claims for unemployment

So how is 160,000 new jobs for the entire month of October good news when 493,000 began drawing first time unemployment benefits during only the first two weeks of October ??

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
"Workers are eligible for unemployment compensation only if they are temporarily out of work through no fault of their own."  in other words these people may collect unemployment benefits assuming the state of residence requirements are met

Using SEASONAL ADJUSTED numbers from http://www.oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp

Week ending 10/01/2016 there were 246,000 INITIAL CLAIMS for unemployment benefits
Week ending 10/08/2016 there were 247,000 INITIAL CLAIMS for unemployment benefits
Simple addition indicates 493,000 people lost jobs during first two weeks in October 2016

and as of Week ending 10/08/2016 there were 2,057,500 continuing claims for unemployment

So how is 160,000 new jobs for the entire month of October good news when 493,000 began drawing first time unemployment benefits during only the first two weeks of October ??

Nuff said...

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
"Workers are eligible for unemployment compensation only if they are temporarily out of work through no fault of their own."  in other words these people may collect unemployment benefits assuming the state of residence requirements are met

Using SEASONAL ADJUSTED numbers from http://www.oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp

Week ending 10/01/2016 there were 246,000 INITIAL CLAIMS for unemployment benefits
Week ending 10/08/2016 there were 247,000 INITIAL CLAIMS for unemployment benefits
Simple addition indicates 493,000 people lost jobs during first two weeks in October 2016

and as of Week ending 10/08/2016 there were 2,057,500 continuing claims for unemployment

So how is 160,000 new jobs for the entire month of October good news when 493,000 began drawing first time unemployment benefits during only the first two weeks of October ??

Nuff said...

Well, your chart does indicate the initial jobless claims is in the same ballpark as the link given .. roughly in the 240 to 255K range for early 2015.

However I did not see how having 160,000 new jobs for the month, October 2016 for example is better than 240 to 250K per week applying for initial jobless benefits during the same time period.