Fantabulous.

Now we can tackle all our other pressing problems.
Guns, climate and soda size.

Same post made on Dr Torch's thread: Truth be told, we actually WANT the unemployment to rise for a short period of time before it starts to decrease. The reason why is that it means that people who dropped out of the labor market are jumping back into it to look for work again. The only reason for people to want to jump back into the labor market is that people are seeing positive news that firms are looking to hire more people. The unemployment rate can easily fall when people stop looking for work. Again, for the labor participation rate to improve, unemployment will have to rise for a short period of time before it begins to fall again.

(02-01-2013 09:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Same post made on Dr Torch's thread: Truth be told, we actually WANT the unemployment to rise for a short period of time before it starts to decrease. The reason why is that it means that people who dropped out of the labor market are jumping back into it to look for work again.

No, it does NOT mean that. That is one possibility, but yesterday (I know, long time ago) showed that NEW unemployment claims were way up.

Unemployment, even the U3 number is up b/c there are fewer jobs. Period. Not b/c people are suddenly trying to re-enter a robust job market. That is simply wishful, unrealistic thinking.

(02-01-2013 09:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Same post made on Dr Torch's thread: Truth be told, we actually WANT the unemployment to rise for a short period of time before it starts to decrease. The reason why is that it means that people who dropped out of the labor market are jumping back into it to look for work again.

No, it does NOT mean that. That is one possibility, but yesterday (I know, long time ago) showed that NEW unemployment claims were way up.

Unemployment, even the U3 number is up b/c there are fewer jobs. Period. Not b/c people are suddenly trying to re-enter a robust job market. That is simply wishful, unrealistic thinking.

But if you take the jobs report on face value, it states that 157,000 net jobs were created. I'm only looking at numbers, so I can't tell you if the new jobs are crap, low tech or even if the gov't is being deceitful and reporting part time work as full time jobs. But if there are sustained months upon months of job growth and then the unemployment rate starts to rise, it most likely means that people are going back into the labor force to start looking for work again. This is typical of recoveries.

I'm not saying the recovery is great or that Obama is doing a great job with the economy. All I'm stating is what I see when I look at the previous job reports and then seeing the unemployment rate moving.

(02-01-2013 09:59 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Same post made on Dr Torch's thread: Truth be told, we actually WANT the unemployment to rise for a short period of time before it starts to decrease. The reason why is that it means that people who dropped out of the labor market are jumping back into it to look for work again.

No, it does NOT mean that. That is one possibility, but yesterday (I know, long time ago) showed that NEW unemployment claims were way up.

Unemployment, even the U3 number is up b/c there are fewer jobs. Period. Not b/c people are suddenly trying to re-enter a robust job market. That is simply wishful, unrealistic thinking.

But if you take the jobs report on face value, it states that 157,000 net jobs were created.

I don't think that's interpreted as net.

(02-01-2013 10:00 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:59 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Same post made on Dr Torch's thread: Truth be told, we actually WANT the unemployment to rise for a short period of time before it starts to decrease. The reason why is that it means that people who dropped out of the labor market are jumping back into it to look for work again.

No, it does NOT mean that. That is one possibility, but yesterday (I know, long time ago) showed that NEW unemployment claims were way up.

Unemployment, even the U3 number is up b/c there are fewer jobs. Period. Not b/c people are suddenly trying to re-enter a robust job market. That is simply wishful, unrealistic thinking.

But if you take the jobs report on face value, it states that 157,000 net jobs were created.

I don't think that's interpreted as net.

I don't get why you say that. The WSJ article talks about the economy adding 157K jobs. Now I can understand that this may not be great if the regular influx of new participants, i.e. people graduating from schools, into the job market is greater than job creation. But those numbers for monthly participation rate increases are typically 75K to 125K per month of new entrants. In light of this, I don't know how you cannot make the assumption that labor participation rates are increasing, which will temporarily bump up the unemployment rate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...TopStories

Quote:Employers added 157,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said Friday. The unemployment rate, obtained by a separate survey of U.S. households, ticked up one-tenth of a percentage point to 7.9%.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires expected nonfarm payrolls to rise by 166,000 and that the unemployment rate would hold steady at 7.8%

Friday's report offers a mixed view of the labor market. January's data which show job growth decelerating, but revisions to 2012 figures show that employers were adding to payrolls faster than originally thought.

For all of last year, the economy added an average of 181,000 jobs a month, according to updated figures, better than the 153,000 pace originally reported. Underscoring that improvement, December's payroll figures were revised to a gain of 196,000 from an initially reported 155,000, while November increased to 247,000 from 161,000.

(02-01-2013 10:18 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:00 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:59 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Same post made on Dr Torch's thread: Truth be told, we actually WANT the unemployment to rise for a short period of time before it starts to decrease. The reason why is that it means that people who dropped out of the labor market are jumping back into it to look for work again.

No, it does NOT mean that. That is one possibility, but yesterday (I know, long time ago) showed that NEW unemployment claims were way up.

Unemployment, even the U3 number is up b/c there are fewer jobs. Period. Not b/c people are suddenly trying to re-enter a robust job market. That is simply wishful, unrealistic thinking.

But if you take the jobs report on face value, it states that 157,000 net jobs were created.

I don't think that's interpreted as net.

I don't get why you say that. The WSJ article talks about the economy adding 157K jobs. Now I can understand that this may not be great if the regular influx of new participants, i.e. people graduating from schools, into the job market is greater than job creation. But those numbers for monthly participation rate increases are typically 75K to 125K per month of new entrants. In light of this, I don't know how you cannot make the assumption that labor participation rates are increasing, which will temporarily bump up the unemployment rate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...TopStories

Quote:Employers added 157,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said Friday. The unemployment rate, obtained by a separate survey of U.S. households, ticked up one-tenth of a percentage point to 7.9%.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires expected nonfarm payrolls to rise by 166,000 and that the unemployment rate would hold steady at 7.8%

Friday's report offers a mixed view of the labor market. January's data which show job growth decelerating, but revisions to 2012 figures show that employers were adding to payrolls faster than originally thought.

For all of last year, the economy added an average of 181,000 jobs a month, according to updated figures, better than the 153,000 pace originally reported. Underscoring that improvement, December's payroll figures were revised to a gain of 196,000 from an initially reported 155,000, while November increased to 247,000 from 161,000.

He says that because when presented with facts that don't line up with their desired narrative, the party opposite just makes sht up out of whole cloth

(02-01-2013 10:18 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:00 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:59 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Same post made on Dr Torch's thread: Truth be told, we actually WANT the unemployment to rise for a short period of time before it starts to decrease. The reason why is that it means that people who dropped out of the labor market are jumping back into it to look for work again.

No, it does NOT mean that. That is one possibility, but yesterday (I know, long time ago) showed that NEW unemployment claims were way up.

Unemployment, even the U3 number is up b/c there are fewer jobs. Period. Not b/c people are suddenly trying to re-enter a robust job market. That is simply wishful, unrealistic thinking.

But if you take the jobs report on face value, it states that 157,000 net jobs were created.

I don't think that's interpreted as net.

I don't get why you say that.

Because the text is vague and elusive.

It may be that it's meant to be a net increase of 157K jobs, regardless of new unemployment filings.

Even then, you do have a growing population.

Your comments about job participation rate are off- that number is decreasing. But I do agree it's an important number to look at. If you did, you'd see the problem is worsening, not improving w/ 157K jobs.

(02-01-2013 10:25 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:18 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:00 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:59 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  No, it does NOT mean that. That is one possibility, but yesterday (I know, long time ago) showed that NEW unemployment claims were way up.

Unemployment, even the U3 number is up b/c there are fewer jobs. Period. Not b/c people are suddenly trying to re-enter a robust job market. That is simply wishful, unrealistic thinking.

But if you take the jobs report on face value, it states that 157,000 net jobs were created.

I don't think that's interpreted as net.

I don't get why you say that.

Because the text is vague and elusive.

It may be that it's meant to be a net increase of 157K jobs, regardless of new unemployment filings.

Even then, you do have a growing population.

Your comments about job participation rate are off- that number is decreasing. But I do agree it's an important number to look at. If you did, you'd see the problem is worsening, not improving w/ 157K jobs.

The labor participation rate is what I would consider to be flat. Throughout 2012, it has ranged from 63.5 - 63.9, and for Jan 2013 it's at 63.6. I agree with you that it hasn't been good for some time. But as of now, I conclude that it has stabilized and has been stable for 13 months. But just looking at the Jan report, my guess is that the participation rate may begin to swing up. Since the jobs numbers have been positive for some time plus now the unemployment rate just ticked up by 0.1%, it MAY be that the labor participation rate may begin to swing up. We won't know, but my conclusion is reasonable and the simplest conclusion to draw based on what we know so far. JMHO.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

(02-01-2013 10:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The labor participation rate is what I would consider to be flat. Throughout 2012, it has ranged from 63.5 - 63.9, and for Jan 2013 it's at 63.6. I agree with you that it hasn't been good for some time. But as of now, I conclude that it has stabilized and has been stable for 13 months. But just looking at the Jan report, my guess is that the participation rate may begin to swing up. Since the jobs numbers have been positive for some time plus now the unemployment rate just ticked up by 0.1%, it MAY be that the labor participation rate may begin to swing up. We won't know, but my conclusion is reasonable and the simplest conclusion to draw based on what we know so far. JMHO.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Not at all, since even your best jobs creation numbers are lower than the increase in population.

And despite the baby boomers reaching age 65, they aren't retiring.

These facts mean the situation is getting worse. Immigration is going to be added pressure. It's insane to think of it.

(02-01-2013 11:00 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The labor participation rate is what I would consider to be flat. Throughout 2012, it has ranged from 63.5 - 63.9, and for Jan 2013 it's at 63.6. I agree with you that it hasn't been good for some time. But as of now, I conclude that it has stabilized and has been stable for 13 months. But just looking at the Jan report, my guess is that the participation rate may begin to swing up. Since the jobs numbers have been positive for some time plus now the unemployment rate just ticked up by 0.1%, it MAY be that the labor participation rate may begin to swing up. We won't know, but my conclusion is reasonable and the simplest conclusion to draw based on what we know so far. JMHO.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Not at all, since even your best jobs creation numbers are lower than the increase in population.

And despite the baby boomers reaching age 65, they aren't retiring.

These facts mean the situation is getting worse. Immigration is going to be added pressure. It's insane to think of it.

Can you point me to the source for your population statistics?

(02-01-2013 11:22 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 11:00 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The labor participation rate is what I would consider to be flat. Throughout 2012, it has ranged from 63.5 - 63.9, and for Jan 2013 it's at 63.6. I agree with you that it hasn't been good for some time. But as of now, I conclude that it has stabilized and has been stable for 13 months. But just looking at the Jan report, my guess is that the participation rate may begin to swing up. Since the jobs numbers have been positive for some time plus now the unemployment rate just ticked up by 0.1%, it MAY be that the labor participation rate may begin to swing up. We won't know, but my conclusion is reasonable and the simplest conclusion to draw based on what we know so far. JMHO.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Not at all, since even your best jobs creation numbers are lower than the increase in population.

And despite the baby boomers reaching age 65, they aren't retiring.

These facts mean the situation is getting worse. Immigration is going to be added pressure. It's insane to think of it.

Can you point me to the source for your population statistics?

data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW

Along w/ birth rates from 1994.

That puts the new employees around 200K. That's an approx. But 157K/200K may keep the participation rate from falling, or even tweak it higher. So the rate isn't getting worse, but absolute numbe out of work is. And that doesn't consider the skyrocketing number on disability.

http://www.google.com/search?q=us+disabi...afe=active

(02-01-2013 09:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Fantabulous.

Now we can tackle all our other pressing problems.
Guns, climate and soda size.

You forgot the discussion of banning energy drinks in Chicago. :)

(02-01-2013 11:22 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 11:00 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The labor participation rate is what I would consider to be flat. Throughout 2012, it has ranged from 63.5 - 63.9, and for Jan 2013 it's at 63.6. I agree with you that it hasn't been good for some time. But as of now, I conclude that it has stabilized and has been stable for 13 months. But just looking at the Jan report, my guess is that the participation rate may begin to swing up. Since the jobs numbers have been positive for some time plus now the unemployment rate just ticked up by 0.1%, it MAY be that the labor participation rate may begin to swing up. We won't know, but my conclusion is reasonable and the simplest conclusion to draw based on what we know so far. JMHO.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Not at all, since even your best jobs creation numbers are lower than the increase in population.

And despite the baby boomers reaching age 65, they aren't retiring.

These facts mean the situation is getting worse. Immigration is going to be added pressure. It's insane to think of it.

Can you point me to the source for your population statistics?

Do you REALLY want to see his ass?