Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 26, 2014, 04:34:33 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Economics (Moderator: ag)
| | |-+  The good US economic news Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: The good US economic news Thread  (Read 4077 times)
Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30735
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2012, 07:16:11 pm »
Ignore

Paranoid gun owners* believing that Obama and the Democrats still intend to ban guns.


* As if there's any other kind!
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 07:23:00 pm by Joe Republic »Logged



Real Americans (and Big Sky Bob) demand to know.


I just slept for 11 hours, so I should need a nap today, but we'll see.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2012, 02:54:49 pm »
Ignore

U.S. jobless claims fall 5,000 to 348,000

Applications for benefits at lowest level since February 2008

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Applications for weekly unemployment benefits set a new four-year low, the government reported Thursday, in another sign that the U.S. labor market continues to gradually improve.

Initial claims fell by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000, the lowest level since February 2008, the Labor Department said.

Claims from the prior week were revised up to 353,000 from an original reading of 351,000.

The level of claims is an indicator of whether layoffs are rising or falling. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had estimated claims would rise to 353,000 in the week ended March 17.

The four-week average of claims, meanwhile, dipped 1,250 to 355,000, just slightly above a four-year low. The monthly average provides a more accurate view of labor-market trends by reducing week-to-week volatility caused by seasonal quirks.

Claims usually range between 300,000 and 400,000 when the economy is growing. New applications for benefits fell below the key 400,000 threshold in the first week of January and have remained there since. Lately claims have settled in the 350,000 range.

Improvement in the labor market is reflected by the monthly employment figures. The U.S. economy has created an average of 245,000 jobs in each of the past three months, the fastest burst of hiring since the recession officially ended in mid-2009.

“The key point here is that the underlying trend in claims is downward, and the current level is already low enough to be consistent with payroll gains around the 250,000 mark,” said chief U.S. economist Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-fall-5000-to-348000-2012-03-22

Er, 

Update -- the numbers were WRONG!

Weekly Jobless Claims Hit Higher Level Than Expected

Published: Thursday, 19 Apr 2012

By: Reuters   
 
New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits fell less than expected last week, according to a government report on Thursday that could dampen hopes of a pick-up in job creation in April after March's slowdown.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47098817


What? The numbers from this week were disappointing so the numbers from the end of March are wrong? Huh

Just As Predicted, Initial Claims Miss Huge

This is the 10th week in a row of misses to the weaker side and the 16th of the last 18.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/just-predicted-initial-claims-miss-huge-yet-magically-improve
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
cavalcade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 746


Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -3.13

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2012, 08:10:09 am »
Ignore

Q1 GDP comes in at 2.2% annualized.
Logged
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23006
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -7.74, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2012, 03:27:40 pm »
Ignore

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/27/markets/stocks/index.htm?iid=A_MKT_News

Smiley
Logged


i like girls but there is NOTHING better then a sexi hott dude
Bacon King
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16198
United States Minor Outlying Islands


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2012, 05:00:00 pm »
Ignore

Q1 GDP comes in at 2.2% annualized.

And it would have been higher without government cuts and the phaseout of some tax advantages for business investments.

Quote
The U.S. economic recovery chugged along in the first three months of the year, showing moderate 2.2 percent growth, the Commerce Department reported Friday, thanks largely to consumers who have ratcheted up their spending.

People bought more cars, furniture and clothes, boosting the economy even as businesses invested more cautiously and governments, constrained by post-recession budget woes, cut spending. Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy, rose 2.9 percent in the first quarter, beating expectations.

...


While consumer spending was strong, other aspects of the economy appeared weak. The budget woes at all levels of government continue to hamper growth, according to the Commerce Department report. Federal government spending dropped 5.6 percent, with defense spending down 8.1 percent. Spending by state and local government dropped by 1.2 percent.

Another key reason for the slowdown was a drop in some business investment, particularly in computers and industrial equipment. That was expected, however, because tax advantages for those purchases expired at the end of last year.

Remember from Econ 101, GDP = consumption + investment + government spending + net exports. What we see here is consumption increasing, government spending decreasing, and investments becoming temporarily tepid.
Logged

BK without all the crazy drugs just wouldn't be BK.

oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9170
Ireland, Republic of
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 03, 2012, 07:48:01 pm »
Ignore

I don't have a link to hand because I'm lazy, but apparently initial claims plunged by the most in nearly a year, which is nice. CARLHAYDEN was spotted walking into the ocean.
Logged

Quote
   <peeperkorn> this forum is full of allergic virgins with nosebleeding
Bacon King
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16198
United States Minor Outlying Islands


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: May 03, 2012, 08:17:21 pm »
Ignore

I don't have a link to hand because I'm lazy, but apparently initial claims plunged by the most in nearly a year, which is nice. CARLHAYDEN was spotted walking into the ocean.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of people who applied for jobless benefits fell last week for the first time in a month to just slightly above a four-year low, according to the latest government data.
Logged

BK without all the crazy drugs just wouldn't be BK.

Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34628
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -6.09

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: May 04, 2012, 12:41:50 am »
Ignore

I don't have a link to hand because I'm lazy, but apparently initial claims plunged by the most in nearly a year, which is nice. CARLHAYDEN was spotted walking into the ocean.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of people who applied for jobless benefits fell last week for the first time in a month to just slightly above a four-year low, according to the latest government data.

I guess the April Jobs report will be bleak today, but the May one should be good news then.
Logged
Nagas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1771
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -7.65

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: May 04, 2012, 12:59:08 am »
Ignore

I don't have a link to hand because I'm lazy, but apparently initial claims plunged by the most in nearly a year, which is nice. CARLHAYDEN was spotted walking into the ocean.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of people who applied for jobless benefits fell last week for the first time in a month to just slightly above a four-year low, according to the latest government data.

I guess the April Jobs report will be bleak today, but the May one should be good news then.

Hard to say. It has overperformed expectations before. manufacturing growth accelerated in April.
Logged

oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9170
Ireland, Republic of
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 04, 2012, 07:39:55 am »
Ignore

I don't have a link to hand because I'm lazy, but apparently initial claims plunged by the most in nearly a year, which is nice. CARLHAYDEN was spotted walking into the ocean.



WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of people who applied for jobless benefits fell last week for the first time in a month to just slightly above a four-year low, according to the latest government data.

I guess the April Jobs report will be bleak today, but the May one should be good news then.


Pretty much! An uninspiring 115k jobs, rate down to 8.1% as growth slows in the least surprising jobs report ever. Tongue

Good news on revisions, though - March up to 154k, February up to 258k! By the looks of things this should get revised upward a little, too.
Logged

Quote
   <peeperkorn> this forum is full of allergic virgins with nosebleeding
m4567
Full Member
***
Posts: 110
View Profile
« Reply #35 on: May 04, 2012, 08:47:40 am »
Ignore

Kind of mixed. It's not moving fast enough. At the same time, a few months ago, I never would've imagined the unemployment rate being 8.1 in May.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 04, 2012, 12:21:14 pm »
Ignore

Unemployment Rate Dips 0.1%, But Workforce Participation Rate Falls 0.2%
 
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
May 4, 2012

The April jobs report showed employers added fewer workers than expected with nonfarm payrolls rising by only 115,000.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/unemployment-rate-dips-01-workforce-participation-rate-falls-02

-----

All the need to do is keep reducing the alleged labor force!

To simplify this for Obama supporters:

1.)   The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

2.)   According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

3.)   In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 12:34:50 pm by CARLHAYDEN »Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
Bacon King
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16198
United States Minor Outlying Islands


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: May 04, 2012, 08:03:36 pm »
Ignore

Unemployment Rate Dips 0.1%, But Workforce Participation Rate Falls 0.2%
 
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
May 4, 2012

The April jobs report showed employers added fewer workers than expected with nonfarm payrolls rising by only 115,000.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/unemployment-rate-dips-01-workforce-participation-rate-falls-02

-----

All the need to do is keep reducing the alleged labor force!

To simplify this for Obama supporters:

I agree that the pace of growth could be greatly improved, but your analysis here doesn't really tell the whole picture and makes things appear unnecessarily negative by excluding some key details.


Quote
1.)   The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

180,000 new people 16 and over in the United States. Presumably, 180k = (# of people turning 16 - # of adult deaths) + net migration.

Using the estimated CIA World Factbook net nigration rate and population for the US in 2012 to figure out expected migration for the year, and dividing it by 12, that give us an estimated net migration of roughly 95k for the month. Using these CDC statistical tables for death by age group, I estimate that 195k deaths 16+ occurred in April. So, with the 180k increase, that means 280k kids reached age 16 last month. (As an aside, I did estimate a 325k total for this number using census records for 1996 births and the infant/juvenile death rate, but that number's the most likely to be inaccurate of my three estimates because there's a much bigger month to month variation in births than in deaths or migration).

Quote
2.)   According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire every day, around 310k people left the labor force last month via retirements alone. In addition, the BLS's April report shows a participation rate of 72% in the 16-64 group and and 23% for 65+; estimating from the CDC chart linked above that roughly 52k deaths occurred in the 16-64 age group and 146k deaths 65+. This means that about 71k people exited the labor force last month through death (37.5k in the former age group, 33.5k in the latter age group). Therefore, about 381k of the 411k drop can be attributed to deaths and retirements alone.

Furthermore, regarding the gap here with the increase you note in your first point, note that most of the population growth can be attributed to teenagers who turned 16 in last month. Even discounting the fact that teenage participation in the labor force in incredibly low, very few 16 year olds will be looking for a job in April- they'll wait until they're out of school for the summer to start looking for a job and entering the labor force (The BLS notes that this is a very consistent trend among youth). With these newly work-age (and almost entirely non-job seeking) teenagers actually outnumbering the overall work-age population increase by a hundred thousand, and the above explanation for the decline in the total civilian labor force, the disparity you note between your first two points here can't really be construed to mean anything.


Quote
3.)   In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.

Noting my findings above, the ~310k new retirements and ~280k new 16 year olds who almost universally aren't looking for work pretty much entirely explain this number.



You seem to be suggesting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is somehow cooking the books to show a reduction in unemployment by reclassifying unemployed job-seekers as discouraged and/or marginally attached workers. If this was true, we'd see increases in U-4 and U-5 that mirror decreases in U-3, the official unemployment rate. However, that demonstrably isn't so. According to the seasonally adjusted numbers, last month's 0.1% decline in the unemployment rate was accompanied by a 0.1% decline in U-5 to 9.5%, while U-4 remained steady at 8.7%. Furthermore, the decline in unemployment since December from 8.5% to 8.1% has been accompanied by a reduction in U-4, from 9.1% to 8.7%, as well as U-5, from 10.0% to 9.5% (for the record, U-6, which also includes underemployment, also declined from 15.2% to 14.5% over those four months). Therefore, there is nobody "reducing the alleged labor force"; unemployment numbers are genuinely improving, even among those not counted in the official unemployment rate. Reductions in labor force participation are mostly due to the fact that the baby boomers have started retiring in massive numbers, and because of this you should expect a slow-but-steady decline in participation over the next decade or two, regardless of how the economy is doing.

Also, since you seem to appreciate prefer using the numbers that aren't seasonally adjusted, I think here at the end I should include for you the BLS's unadjusted unemployment rate changes between March and April Smiley

U-3 (Official Unemployment Rate): 8.4% to 7.7%
U-4: 8.9% to 8.3%
U-5: 9.7% to 9.1%
U-6: 14.8% to 14.1%
Logged

BK without all the crazy drugs just wouldn't be BK.

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13512


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 05, 2012, 12:34:09 am »
Ignore

Well done BK!
Logged
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9170
Ireland, Republic of
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: May 05, 2012, 05:35:15 pm »
Ignore

bacon king you didn't account for sharia law in your alleged post
Logged

Quote
   <peeperkorn> this forum is full of allergic virgins with nosebleeding
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: May 07, 2012, 12:58:10 pm »
Ignore

Unemployment Rate Dips 0.1%, But Workforce Participation Rate Falls 0.2%
 
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
May 4, 2012

The April jobs report showed employers added fewer workers than expected with nonfarm payrolls rising by only 115,000.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/unemployment-rate-dips-01-workforce-participation-rate-falls-02

-----

All the need to do is keep reducing the alleged labor force!

To simplify this for Obama supporters:

I agree that the pace of growth could be greatly improved, but your analysis here doesn't really tell the whole picture and makes things appear unnecessarily negative by excluding some key details.


Quote
1.)   The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

180,000 new people 16 and over in the United States. Presumably, 180k = (# of people turning 16 - # of adult deaths) + net migration.

Using the estimated CIA World Factbook net nigration rate and population for the US in 2012 to figure out expected migration for the year, and dividing it by 12, that give us an estimated net migration of roughly 95k for the month. Using these CDC statistical tables for death by age group, I estimate that 195k deaths 16+ occurred in April. So, with the 180k increase, that means 280k kids reached age 16 last month. (As an aside, I did estimate a 325k total for this number using census records for 1996 births and the infant/juvenile death rate, but that number's the most likely to be inaccurate of my three estimates because there's a much bigger month to month variation in births than in deaths or migration).

Quote
2.)   According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire every day, around 310k people left the labor force last month via retirements alone. In addition, the BLS's April report shows a participation rate of 72% in the 16-64 group and and 23% for 65+; estimating from the CDC chart linked above that roughly 52k deaths occurred in the 16-64 age group and 146k deaths 65+. This means that about 71k people exited the labor force last month through death (37.5k in the former age group, 33.5k in the latter age group). Therefore, about 381k of the 411k drop can be attributed to deaths and retirements alone.

Furthermore, regarding the gap here with the increase you note in your first point, note that most of the population growth can be attributed to teenagers who turned 16 in last month. Even discounting the fact that teenage participation in the labor force in incredibly low, very few 16 year olds will be looking for a job in April- they'll wait until they're out of school for the summer to start looking for a job and entering the labor force (The BLS notes that this is a very consistent trend among youth). With these newly work-age (and almost entirely non-job seeking) teenagers actually outnumbering the overall work-age population increase by a hundred thousand, and the above explanation for the decline in the total civilian labor force, the disparity you note between your first two points here can't really be construed to mean anything.


Quote
3.)   In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.

Noting my findings above, the ~310k new retirements and ~280k new 16 year olds who almost universally aren't looking for work pretty much entirely explain this number.



You seem to be suggesting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is somehow cooking the books to show a reduction in unemployment by reclassifying unemployed job-seekers as discouraged and/or marginally attached workers. If this was true, we'd see increases in U-4 and U-5 that mirror decreases in U-3, the official unemployment rate. However, that demonstrably isn't so. According to the seasonally adjusted numbers, last month's 0.1% decline in the unemployment rate was accompanied by a 0.1% decline in U-5 to 9.5%, while U-4 remained steady at 8.7%. Furthermore, the decline in unemployment since December from 8.5% to 8.1% has been accompanied by a reduction in U-4, from 9.1% to 8.7%, as well as U-5, from 10.0% to 9.5% (for the record, U-6, which also includes underemployment, also declined from 15.2% to 14.5% over those four months). Therefore, there is nobody "reducing the alleged labor force"; unemployment numbers are genuinely improving, even among those not counted in the official unemployment rate. Reductions in labor force participation are mostly due to the fact that the baby boomers have started retiring in massive numbers, and because of this you should expect a slow-but-steady decline in participation over the next decade or two, regardless of how the economy is doing.

Also, since you seem to appreciate prefer using the numbers that aren't seasonally adjusted, I think here at the end I should include for you the BLS's unadjusted unemployment rate changes between March and April Smiley

U-3 (Official Unemployment Rate): 8.4% to 7.7%
U-4: 8.9% to 8.3%
U-5: 9.7% to 9.1%
U-6: 14.8% to 14.1%

BK,

You are hysterically funny.

Apparently NOTHING will  shake you from your worship of Obamanomics.

I realize that this is a difficult matter for you to understand, but, in economic recoveries, for a few months, the labor force dramatically increases, which is NOT happening now!  

So, when a recovery really begins, how are you going to explain the dramatic increase in the labor force which you are not falsely attributing to retirement?

Oh, and btw, here is some more info:

Labor Force Disappears in Obama’s Depression
If you’re not scared, you haven’t read the numbers.

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/05/06/labor-force-disappears-in-obamas-depression/

Some nice charts courtesy of The St. Louis Fed.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2012, 01:02:01 pm by CARLHAYDEN »Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9170
Ireland, Republic of
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: May 07, 2012, 01:14:41 pm »
Ignore

Oh my! Flee, flee, Bacon King, lest you be skewered by the sheer force of HAYDEN's intellect.
Logged

Quote
   <peeperkorn> this forum is full of allergic virgins with nosebleeding
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28486
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 07, 2012, 02:22:56 pm »
Ignore

What's ironic given CARL's insitence that Obama is cooking the books to make his record look better, is that as the WSJ pointed out this weekend, if the job numbers for April were adjusted using the adjustment method in place in 2008, the adjusted April 2012 numbers would not have been 115,000 new jobs, but around 180,000 new jobs.  I guess Obama needs to hire some new cooks for the books while he still has time.
Logged

My ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4042
United States


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: May 07, 2012, 02:44:03 pm »
Ignore

lol CARL
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: May 07, 2012, 05:29:42 pm »
Ignore

Unemployment Rate Dips 0.1%, But Workforce Participation Rate Falls 0.2%
 
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
May 4, 2012

The April jobs report showed employers added fewer workers than expected with nonfarm payrolls rising by only 115,000.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/unemployment-rate-dips-01-workforce-participation-rate-falls-02

-----

All the need to do is keep reducing the alleged labor force!

To simplify this for Obama supporters:

I agree that the pace of growth could be greatly improved, but your analysis here doesn't really tell the whole picture and makes things appear unnecessarily negative by excluding some key details.


Quote
1.)   The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

180,000 new people 16 and over in the United States. Presumably, 180k = (# of people turning 16 - # of adult deaths) + net migration.

Using the estimated CIA World Factbook net nigration rate and population for the US in 2012 to figure out expected migration for the year, and dividing it by 12, that give us an estimated net migration of roughly 95k for the month. Using these CDC statistical tables for death by age group, I estimate that 195k deaths 16+ occurred in April. So, with the 180k increase, that means 280k kids reached age 16 last month. (As an aside, I did estimate a 325k total for this number using census records for 1996 births and the infant/juvenile death rate, but that number's the most likely to be inaccurate of my three estimates because there's a much bigger month to month variation in births than in deaths or migration).

Quote
2.)   According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire every day, around 310k people left the labor force last month via retirements alone. In addition, the BLS's April report shows a participation rate of 72% in the 16-64 group and and 23% for 65+; estimating from the CDC chart linked above that roughly 52k deaths occurred in the 16-64 age group and 146k deaths 65+. This means that about 71k people exited the labor force last month through death (37.5k in the former age group, 33.5k in the latter age group). Therefore, about 381k of the 411k drop can be attributed to deaths and retirements alone.

Furthermore, regarding the gap here with the increase you note in your first point, note that most of the population growth can be attributed to teenagers who turned 16 in last month. Even discounting the fact that teenage participation in the labor force in incredibly low, very few 16 year olds will be looking for a job in April- they'll wait until they're out of school for the summer to start looking for a job and entering the labor force (The BLS notes that this is a very consistent trend among youth). With these newly work-age (and almost entirely non-job seeking) teenagers actually outnumbering the overall work-age population increase by a hundred thousand, and the above explanation for the decline in the total civilian labor force, the disparity you note between your first two points here can't really be construed to mean anything.


Quote
3.)   In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.

Noting my findings above, the ~310k new retirements and ~280k new 16 year olds who almost universally aren't looking for work pretty much entirely explain this number.



You seem to be suggesting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is somehow cooking the books to show a reduction in unemployment by reclassifying unemployed job-seekers as discouraged and/or marginally attached workers. If this was true, we'd see increases in U-4 and U-5 that mirror decreases in U-3, the official unemployment rate. However, that demonstrably isn't so. According to the seasonally adjusted numbers, last month's 0.1% decline in the unemployment rate was accompanied by a 0.1% decline in U-5 to 9.5%, while U-4 remained steady at 8.7%. Furthermore, the decline in unemployment since December from 8.5% to 8.1% has been accompanied by a reduction in U-4, from 9.1% to 8.7%, as well as U-5, from 10.0% to 9.5% (for the record, U-6, which also includes underemployment, also declined from 15.2% to 14.5% over those four months). Therefore, there is nobody "reducing the alleged labor force"; unemployment numbers are genuinely improving, even among those not counted in the official unemployment rate. Reductions in labor force participation are mostly due to the fact that the baby boomers have started retiring in massive numbers, and because of this you should expect a slow-but-steady decline in participation over the next decade or two, regardless of how the economy is doing.

Also, since you seem to appreciate prefer using the numbers that aren't seasonally adjusted, I think here at the end I should include for you the BLS's unadjusted unemployment rate changes between March and April Smiley

U-3 (Official Unemployment Rate): 8.4% to 7.7%
U-4: 8.9% to 8.3%
U-5: 9.7% to 9.1%
U-6: 14.8% to 14.1%

It occurred to me that you really might believe the nonsense you are spouting.

So, I'll try to explain it to you quite simply.

As the experts (check with a CFP, pension actuary, PHR specializing in retirement, etc.) and they will tell you that the retirement rate has decreased over the past three years as people who would have retired continue to work as they lost a huge amount of money that had salted away for retirement.

http://www.conference-board.org/press/pressdetail.cfm?pressid=4200
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
Bacon King
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16198
United States Minor Outlying Islands


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: May 07, 2012, 07:16:15 pm »
Ignore

BK,

You are hysterically funny.

I spent literally two hours preparing the post you quoted. I'm honestly a bit perturbed that you ignored pretty much everything I said, cherry-picked a few details to attack and just link a couple of articles to fight for you. Not to mention the fact that you seem insistent on demeaning me, as well.

Quote
Apparently NOTHING will  shake you from your worship of Obamanomics.

Please refrain from hyperbole, as I have done you the courtesy. I'd like to keep this discussion civil and related to the facts as much as possible. If that's asking too much, and I feel that it may, just let me know.

Quote
I realize that this is a difficult matter for you to understand, but, in economic recoveries, for a few months, the labor force dramatically increases, which is NOT happening now! 

So, when a recovery really begins, how are you going to explain the dramatic increase in the labor force which you are not falsely attributing to retirement?

I said at the beginning of my post that current trends in economic growth are not nearly what they could be. I'm not contesting that. What I am disputing is your misrepresentation of statistics to imply that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is artificially deflating the unemployment numbers by unjustly kicking people out of the labor market. I have demonstrably proven this is not the case, with no response from you, most notably with my comparison of other unemployment measures to the official number.

By the way, I do hope that when the labor force participation shoots up in a month or two (from high school and college kids seeking summer jobs) that this emphasis you place on the labor force participation rate leads you to conclude that the economy is in full recovery Tongue

Quote
Oh, and btw, here is some more info:

Labor Force Disappears in Obama’s Depression
If you’re not scared, you haven’t read the numbers.

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/05/06/labor-force-disappears-in-obamas-depression/

Some nice charts courtesy of The St. Louis Fed.

This article actually, for the most part, proves my point. First, notice the significant spikes in both charts, every single summer? That's the youth, entering the labor force for the summer and leaving when school starts back in the fall. Exactly as I said previously to disprove your assertion that the simultaneous population increase and labor force decrease was somehow relevant.

Second, notice that a fairly consistent pattern of year-to-year decline in labor force participation can be observed starting in 2009. Do you know when the first baby-boomers started reaching retirement age? Exactly.

Third, this is mostly an aside to our current discourse, but I must comment on the article's half-truth claim that "a fifth of all personal income is now transfer payments" with the implication that it has anything to do with Obama. First, it's worth pointing out that by far the two most expensive Federal programs of transfer payments to individuals are Social Security and Medicare- both these entitlements go to.... yes, retired people. And besides, most of the fact that transfer payments have increased as a proportion of personal income over the past few decades is due to the ever-increasing cost of medical coverage in the United States, which is a problem that long predates Obama:


(red line is transfers minus Medicare and Medicaid)

The recent spike is mostly due to increased unemployment benefits, of course- that has a disproportionate impact on this chart because when someone loses their job, their income goes from 0% to 100% transfer payments.

But, I digress.

It occurred to me that you really might believe the nonsense you are spouting.

So, I'll try to explain it to you quite simply.

Again, I'll gladly debate you but please stop the irrelevant remarks.

Quote
As the experts (check with a CFP, pension actuary, PHR specializing in retirement, etc.) and they will tell you that the retirement rate has decreased over the past three years as people who would have retired continue to work as they lost a huge amount of money that had salted away for retirement.

http://www.conference-board.org/press/pressdetail.cfm?pressid=4200

This has piqued my curiousity. I'm currently searching for the full article through my university's Journal/Article database but I can't seem to find it. It wasn't in Conference Board's quarterly review for spring or summer 2011. Can you shed any light on how I could find the full article?

It doesn't actually specifically mention anything about people delaying retirement above age 65 (which is what my entire assumption of "the baby boomers are turning 65 and retiring en masse just like John Boehner and the Social Security Administration said"). Regardless, just because a greater proportion of people have been delaying retirement (above age 65 or not, would like to find out though) doesn't mean that my above assertions were necessarily wrong, because a much greater bulk of people are still now entering the age group for retirement.

Besides, regardless of retirements, that doesn't change the fact that I demonstrated fairly strongly that there's no sudden increase in detached workers, which you seem to be suggesting is the case in spite of the evidence.

Also, you never commented on my unadjusted unemployment numbers Smiley
Logged

BK without all the crazy drugs just wouldn't be BK.

Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9215
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -5.22

View Profile
« Reply #46 on: May 08, 2012, 02:38:23 am »
Ignore

It occurred to me that you really might believe the nonsense you are spouting.


I know it's hard to believe it Carl but the same thought about you occurred to me a long time ago.
Logged

Bob Findley: "You're a real dyed-in-the-wool son-of-a-bitch. Anyone ever told you that?"
Steve Everett: "Just close friends and family,"

Clint Eastwood's "True Crime", 1999.
philly09
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 89


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: May 08, 2012, 11:23:02 am »
Ignore

U.S. heading toward April budget surplus: CBO

(Reuters) - The United States will post a budget surplus for April, the first month it will have done so since the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the Congressional Budget Office forecast on Monday.

"The Treasury realized a surplus of $58 billion in April 2012, CBO estimates, in contrast with the $40 billion deficit reported for the same month last year," the nonpartisan agency said in a statement.

The Treasury Department is scheduled to publish the official April budget statement on Thursday afternoon.

A Treasury spokesman said there has not been a monthly surplus since September 2008 when the economy was struggling in a severe downturn during the financial crisis.

A one-month surplus would not signal a turnaround in U.S. indebtedness. CBO forecast in January that the United States was headed for a fourth straight year of deficits that top $1 trillion during the current fiscal year that ends September 30.

Analysts surveyed by Reuters have forecast a smaller $30-billion surplus for April.

CBO cited some special factors at play in April, partly because of shifts in the timing of payments that would ordinarily occur in March or May but instead came in April.

As well, refunds to taxpayers who overpaid their 2011 taxes were about $14 billion lower this year than last year because some that ordinarily would have been recorded in April were made in prior months.

"Adjusted for those shifts, the surplus in April 2012 would have been $27 billion, compared with a deficit of $13 billion in April 2011," CBO said.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: May 08, 2012, 04:21:30 pm »
Ignore

BK,

You are hysterically funny.

I spent literally two hours preparing the post you quoted. I'm honestly a bit perturbed that you ignored pretty much everything I said, cherry-picked a few details to attack and just link a couple of articles to fight for you. Not to mention the fact that you seem insistent on demeaning me, as well.

Quote
Apparently NOTHING will  shake you from your worship of Obamanomics.

Please refrain from hyperbole, as I have done you the courtesy. I'd like to keep this discussion civil and related to the facts as much as possible. If that's asking too much, and I feel that it may, just let me know.

Quote
I realize that this is a difficult matter for you to understand, but, in economic recoveries, for a few months, the labor force dramatically increases, which is NOT happening now! 

So, when a recovery really begins, how are you going to explain the dramatic increase in the labor force which you are not falsely attributing to retirement?

I said at the beginning of my post that current trends in economic growth are not nearly what they could be. I'm not contesting that. What I am disputing is your misrepresentation of statistics to imply that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is artificially deflating the unemployment numbers by unjustly kicking people out of the labor market. I have demonstrably proven this is not the case, with no response from you, most notably with my comparison of other unemployment measures to the official number.

By the way, I do hope that when the labor force participation shoots up in a month or two (from high school and college kids seeking summer jobs) that this emphasis you place on the labor force participation rate leads you to conclude that the economy is in full recovery Tongue

Quote
Oh, and btw, here is some more info:

Labor Force Disappears in Obama’s Depression
If you’re not scared, you haven’t read the numbers.

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/05/06/labor-force-disappears-in-obamas-depression/

Some nice charts courtesy of The St. Louis Fed.

This article actually, for the most part, proves my point. First, notice the significant spikes in both charts, every single summer? That's the youth, entering the labor force for the summer and leaving when school starts back in the fall. Exactly as I said previously to disprove your assertion that the simultaneous population increase and labor force decrease was somehow relevant.

Second, notice that a fairly consistent pattern of year-to-year decline in labor force participation can be observed starting in 2009. Do you know when the first baby-boomers started reaching retirement age? Exactly.

Third, this is mostly an aside to our current discourse, but I must comment on the article's half-truth claim that "a fifth of all personal income is now transfer payments" with the implication that it has anything to do with Obama. First, it's worth pointing out that by far the two most expensive Federal programs of transfer payments to individuals are Social Security and Medicare- both these entitlements go to.... yes, retired people. And besides, most of the fact that transfer payments have increased as a proportion of personal income over the past few decades is due to the ever-increasing cost of medical coverage in the United States, which is a problem that long predates Obama:


(red line is transfers minus Medicare and Medicaid)

The recent spike is mostly due to increased unemployment benefits, of course- that has a disproportionate impact on this chart because when someone loses their job, their income goes from 0% to 100% transfer payments.

But, I digress.

It occurred to me that you really might believe the nonsense you are spouting.

So, I'll try to explain it to you quite simply.

Again, I'll gladly debate you but please stop the irrelevant remarks.

Quote
As the experts (check with a CFP, pension actuary, PHR specializing in retirement, etc.) and they will tell you that the retirement rate has decreased over the past three years as people who would have retired continue to work as they lost a huge amount of money that had salted away for retirement.

http://www.conference-board.org/press/pressdetail.cfm?pressid=4200

This has piqued my curiousity. I'm currently searching for the full article through my university's Journal/Article database but I can't seem to find it. It wasn't in Conference Board's quarterly review for spring or summer 2011. Can you shed any light on how I could find the full article?

It doesn't actually specifically mention anything about people delaying retirement above age 65 (which is what my entire assumption of "the baby boomers are turning 65 and retiring en masse just like John Boehner and the Social Security Administration said"). Regardless, just because a greater proportion of people have been delaying retirement (above age 65 or not, would like to find out though) doesn't mean that my above assertions were necessarily wrong, because a much greater bulk of people are still now entering the age group for retirement.

Besides, regardless of retirements, that doesn't change the fact that I demonstrated fairly strongly that there's no sudden increase in detached workers, which you seem to be suggesting is the case in spite of the evidence.

Also, you never commented on my unadjusted unemployment numbers Smiley

Bk,

First, making long-winded assertions devoid of either facts or logic does NOT constitute debate.

Second, you have asserted that the reduction in the workforce is simply a matter of increased retirements, with NO evidence to support that assertion (no, data from fifteen years ago cannot be extrapolated to today).

Here's some more information:

“There's no question -- people in the United States are waiting longer to retire.”

http://www.secondact.com/2011/05/10-reasons-boomers-are-delaying-retirement/

Third, have you considered why the trend (begining in 2009) is for a reduced workforce other than the spurious assertion of retirements?  Did something else happen in 2009?

Fourth, who told you that the reduction in the workforce was the result of retirements?

Fifth, I realize that it is an article of faith that "civility" consists of agreeing with whatever preposterous assertions are made by the left, but this is NOT the case!

Finally, yes, I must agree you do "digress." 

Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: May 08, 2012, 04:51:25 pm »
Ignore

Oh, and here's some more info, courtesy of BLS:

Now, let’s take a look at what the BLS has asserted:

First, the Civilian noninstitutional labor force was projected to be approximately 82,626,000 in 2011, and approximately 83,189,000 in 2012.

Now, those ages 65 and over were estimated to be approximately 7,115,000 in 2011, and 7,667,000 in 2012 (a difference of approximately 552,000).  With a little basic math, that means that the civilian noninstitutional labor force, without any increase in the number of those 65 and over, would still increase!

But wait, there’s more.

In 2011, the civilian noninstitutional population was estimated to be approximately 240,317,000, while in 2012 it is projected to be approximately 242,755,000, an increase of approximately 2,438,000.  However the civilian noninstitutional population age 65 and over is projected to increase in 2012 from 2011 by approximately, 1,442,000. 

So, if its not retirement (as you previously asserted), and the Obama administration is absolutely blameless, then where did those people go?
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines