Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Hello *taps mic* is this thing on??

I was speaking to wallet, he's making a "spin" claim, that wiki is spinning, but BLS is not.

 

[Epic]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Hello *taps mic* is this thing on??

Ricter, please read closely. Are you ready?

The BLS reports unemployment several ways. The U3 statistic, which conveniently leaves out just about anyone who has given up, accepted part time working while they are looking for an equal job to the one they lost, etc...the stat that is the most bogus, is the headline number. That's the number that is picked up in all the media publications (main stream) and that's the one Obama was just touting on tv an hour ago.

Are you still with me? The BLS publishes a lot of other data that is far better an indication of the unemployment situation, such as the Labor Force Participation Rate. Even the U6 (which includes all the aforementioned individuals) that indicates an unemployment rate somewhere around 11.6%, comes from the BLS. But since it's buried deep in the report and not discussed (and because the media is not interested in the gloomy truth) it's all irrelevant.

You follow now? The light beginning to turn on?

So the monthly Non-Farm Payrolls report that is intended to paint a picture of the employment situation in the United States uses the statistic most beneficial (and consistently the most inaccurate) picture of the employment situation.

IMO, the U6 is the best to publish as a general employment guideline. There are good reasons not to use the LFPR. The U3 is complete garbage and I can't make a single reasonable argument in favor of using it as a headline number.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

I was speaking to wallet, he's making a "spin" claim, that wiki is spinning, but BLS is not.

So what did you guys decide? Is the 1.2M number legit?

 

[Wallet]

Quote from Ricter:

I was speaking to wallet, he's making a "spin" claim, that wiki is spinning, but BLS is not.

No, I was pointing out the fact that Tsing Tao was posting stats directly from the BLS, you were trying to point to someones internet interpretation.

I saw a sad but true comic strip a few weeks ago, some guy standing there with a need-a-job-been-looking-for-2-years sign...... the other guy says "you're in luck, you're no longer unemployed.

By dropping those people who's unemployment benefits have expired, those who have had to take a much lower paying job because of the lack of benefits, not factoring in those who's self employed businesses have failed, and the multitude of others that fall between the cracks .......... then taking that falsified bogus number and parading around, patting yourself on the back for a job well done is a slap to every person who's hurting in this suck ass economy.

The *Ahem* Official Unemployment Rate, is a joke and noting to be happy about.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Wallet:

No, I was pointing out the fact that Tsing Tao was posting stats directly from the BLS, you were trying to point to someones internet interpretation.

I saw a sad but true comic strip a few weeks ago, some guy standing there with a need-a-job-been-looking-for-2-years sign...... the other guy says "you're in luck, you're no longer unemployed.

By dropping those people who's unemployment benefits have expired, those who have had to take a much lower paying job because of the lack of benefits, not factoring in those who's self employed businesses have failed, and the multitude of others that fall between the cracks .......... then taking that falsified bogus number and parading around, patting yourself on the back for a job well done is a slap to every person who's hurting in this suck ass economy.

The *Ahem* Official Unemployment Rate, is a joke and noting to be happy about.

Well said. I'm happy to admit that the real unemployment/underemployment situation is not good, not good at all. So the retort that I've received before, regarding people on social assistance and the nonsense of just cutting them off, that "they should just get a fucking job", is itself nonsense. The jobs are not there. Some righties box themselves in. The job situation is terrible when they're evaluating Obama, but the job situation is not terrible when they're evaluating the social safety net.

 

[pspr]

Quote from Wallet:

I saw a sad but true comic strip a few weeks ago, some guy standing there with a need-a-job-been-looking-for-2-years sign...... the other guy says "you're in luck, you're no longer unemployed.

LOL

Even the Congressional Budget Office recently said that unemployment is actually around 10%.

"Had that portion of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 that is attributable to neither the aging of the baby boomers nor the downturn in the business cycle (on the basis of the experience in previous downturns) not occurred, the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 would have been about 1¼ percentage points higher than the actual rate of 8.7 percent"

Translation: CBO just admitted that the BLS numbers are bogus and real unemployment is 10%.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released

 

[Wallet]

Quote from Ricter:

Well said. I'm happy to admit that the real unemployment/underemployment situation is not good, not good at all. So the retort that I've received before, regarding people on social assistance and the nonsense of just cutting them off, that "they should just get a fucking job", is itself nonsense. The jobs are not there. Some righties box themselves in. The job situation is terrible when they're evaluating Obama, but the job situation is not terrible when they're evaluating the social safety net.

I'm all for helping people, specially helping people to learn to help themselves.

Do you think someone who's receiving unemployment, who's suppose to be looking for a job, albeit there's few to find, should pass a drug test?

They will probably have to pass one to get a job?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Epic:

IMO, the U6 is the best to publish as a general employment guideline. There are good reasons not to use the LFPR. The U3 is complete garbage and I can't make a single reasonable argument in favor of using it as a headline number.

The U6 includes those persons with "shit jobs"? I guess that's a good thing, our economy is producing more of those it seems, and they are better than nothing.

 

[Epic]

Quote from Ricter:

The U6 includes those persons with "shit jobs"? I guess that's a good thing, our economy is producing more of those it seems, and they are better than nothing.

The U6 is reflective of all people who want a job but don't have one. That is the only number anyone really cares about, but the number is not reported.

It is completely bogus ask someone if they are still looking for a job, they tell the BLS they've given up after a year, and then the BLS says, "Great, you're no longer unemployed then". This is the U3.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Epic:

IMO, the U6 is the best to publish as a general employment guideline. There are good reasons not to use the LFPR. The U3 is complete garbage and I can't make a single reasonable argument in favor of using it as a headline number.

I am with you on the U3 being complete garbage, and the U6 being a better stat. I think the best is the LFPR, but can agree that there are times when it is not the best to use - depending on what you are looking for. But the fact remains, the media touts the U3 headline number as if it were the true employment situation, and it is SO not.