The good US economic news Thread

[Bacon King]

Bk,

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

The two of us vehemently disagree on this subject, certainly. I'm just asking that if you find problems with my sources or reasoning, to attack them instead of me, as I have shown you the same courtesy (although the restraint can be admittedly difficult).

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).

I never claimed that a reduction in the labor force was only from retirements; that would be ridiculous. I've only pointed out that most of the decrease in labor force participation- especially currently- can be attributed to the indisputable fact that America's population is getting older and tons of Americans are beginning to retire: the baby-boomers are reaching 65.

Some people certainly do leave the labor force for other reasons. Like I noted earlier, many young people exit the work force during the non-summer months. Also, yes, some people get discouraged and stop looking for jobs. But the thing is, the BLS already measures those sorts of people, and the number of discouraged workers haven't been on the increase, but have been decreasing proportionally with the unemployment rate. See chart:



From top to bottom, the lines are U-6, U-5, U-4, and U-3. Since the number of discouraged workers is on the decline, your explanations really don't hold water. How do you explain that?

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/

Again, this makes no reference to anyone waiting to retire until they're older than 65. Also, a quote from the article:

"More than two-thirds (68 percent) of older workers cite health coverage as a reason to delay retirement... Covering health-care costs is even more important to people in poor health: Of that group, an overwhelming majority (77 percent) say they'll keep working until they're eligible for Medicare benefits."

68% of older workers are delaying retirement because of health coverage, and the United States runs a nationwide program to guarantee health insurance access for everyone on the day they turn 65! This isn't about people who were going to retire at 65 waiting longer, this is about people who were going to retire at a younger age waiting until they turn 65. If anything, that causes my assumptions to be underestimates.

Also, for the record, note that per the SSA's FY 2013 Performance Plan, the number of initial retirement claims increased ~12% between 2008 and 2009, and also increased considerably 20010-2011, with further increases estimated in the future (see p29, chart 2.1b).

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?

Of course it was greatly exacerbated by discouraged workers who gave up looking for a job from the recession (as the increase in alternative unemployment measures shows) but considering that the measurements also indicate that the level of discouraged workers are at the lowest level since 2009. However, the other trend that started in 2009 (i.e., baby-boomers hitting 65), is only increasing.

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

Nobody "told me", it was an obvious conclusion to reach when I saw labor force participation decreased while unemployment and discouraged worker rates both declined. That led me to research the retirement figures and estimates which verified my hypothesis.

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." 

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm pointing out that you're making an argument based on inaccurate assumptions, and defending my stance by demonstrating that it remains valid in spite of the evidence you've cited. All I ask is, if you'd like to continue this discussion further, to not act so rudely.

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?

Don't have much time to respond to this, as I need to get on the road pretty soon, but a few points

-what statistics are you citing here? Please provide sources. I do hope you're not comparing adjusted numbers to unadjusted numbers!
-I also hope you're not doing something silly like comparing year-end average figures to single-month figures
-Where'd you find direct figures on 65+ labor force and non-labor force growth? was looking everywhere for them.

but will look at these numbers in more detail as soon as I get home

[CARLHAYDEN]

Bk,

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

The two of us vehemently disagree on this subject, certainly. I'm just asking that if you find problems with my sources or reasoning, to attack them instead of me, as I have shown you the same courtesy (although the restraint can be admittedly difficult).

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).

I never claimed that a reduction in the labor force was only from retirements; that would be ridiculous. I've only pointed out that most of the decrease in labor force participation- especially currently- can be attributed to the indisputable fact that America's population is getting older and tons of Americans are beginning to retire: the baby-boomers are reaching 65.

Some people certainly do leave the labor force for other reasons. Like I noted earlier, many young people exit the work force during the non-summer months. Also, yes, some people get discouraged and stop looking for jobs. But the thing is, the BLS already measures those sorts of people, and the number of discouraged workers haven't been on the increase, but have been decreasing proportionally with the unemployment rate. See chart:



From top to bottom, the lines are U-6, U-5, U-4, and U-3. Since the number of discouraged workers is on the decline, your explanations really don't hold water. How do you explain that?

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/

Again, this makes no reference to anyone waiting to retire until they're older than 65. Also, a quote from the article:

"More than two-thirds (68 percent) of older workers cite health coverage as a reason to delay retirement... Covering health-care costs is even more important to people in poor health: Of that group, an overwhelming majority (77 percent) say they'll keep working until they're eligible for Medicare benefits."

68% of older workers are delaying retirement because of health coverage, and the United States runs a nationwide program to guarantee health insurance access for everyone on the day they turn 65! This isn't about people who were going to retire at 65 waiting longer, this is about people who were going to retire at a younger age waiting until they turn 65. If anything, that causes my assumptions to be underestimates.

Also, for the record, note that per the SSA's FY 2013 Performance Plan, the number of initial retirement claims increased ~12% between 2008 and 2009, and also increased considerably 20010-2011, with further increases estimated in the future (see p29, chart 2.1b).

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?

Of course it was greatly exacerbated by discouraged workers who gave up looking for a job from the recession (as the increase in alternative unemployment measures shows) but considering that the measurements also indicate that the level of discouraged workers are at the lowest level since 2009. However, the other trend that started in 2009 (i.e., baby-boomers hitting 65), is only increasing.

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

Nobody "told me", it was an obvious conclusion to reach when I saw labor force participation decreased while unemployment and discouraged worker rates both declined. That led me to research the retirement figures and estimates which verified my hypothesis.

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." 

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm pointing out that you're making an argument based on inaccurate assumptions, and defending my stance by demonstrating that it remains valid in spite of the evidence you've cited. All I ask is, if you'd like to continue this discussion further, to not act so rudely.

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?

Don't have much time to respond to this, as I need to get on the road pretty soon, but a few points

-what statistics are you citing here? Please provide sources. I do hope you're not comparing adjusted numbers to unadjusted numbers!
-I also hope you're not doing something silly like comparing year-end average figures to single-month figures
-Where'd you find direct figures on 65+ labor force and non-labor force growth? was looking everywhere for them.

but will look at these numbers in more detail as soon as I get home

You are incredible.

You make assumptions which are contrary to facts.

Just because people reach retirement age does NOT mean they retire, particularly if they sustained massive loses to their savings in recent years.

Try dealing with reality, rather than continuing your mindless worship of Obamanomics.

[Nagas]

You are incredible.

You make assumptions which are contrary to facts.

Just because people reach retirement age does NOT mean they retire, particularly if they sustained massive loses to their savings in recent years.

Try dealing with reality, rather than continuing your mindless worship of Obamanomics.

There is someone who is "mindless" and who wins the irony award in this thread. I'll give you a hint: it's not Bacon King.

[Tender Branson]

U.S. records first monthly budget surplus since 2008

By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney May 10, 2012: 3:05 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- For the first time in more than three years, Washington took in more money than it paid out last month.

The Treasury Department on Thursday recorded a $59 billion surplus. Tax receipts were higher and spending lower than they were last April.

The government has been bedeviled by budget deficits. The last time federal coffers were in the black for a month was September 2008, when Treasury reported a $46 billion surplus.

Of course, a lot has happened since then: a historic financial crisis, a deep recession and a slow recovery.

To counteract the negative effects on the economy, lawmakers have passed at least $2 trillion in tax cuts and spending increases since 2008.

Even though a surplus after so much time is welcome news, it's not likely to be the start of a trend.

Including the April surplus, Treasury forecasts a $1.33 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2012, which ends Sept. 30.

To date this fiscal year, the United States has racked up a $720 billion deficit. But that's less than the $870 billion recorded during the same period last year.

The April surplus also isn't likely to change expectations for when U.S. borrowing will hit the country's debt ceiling. The current legal limit on borrowing is $16.394 trillion, and total accrued debt subject to that limit has already topped $15.6 trillion.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/news/economy/budget-deficit

[Tender Branson]

For fiscal 2011, the deficit was 1.299 Bio. $ or 8.7% of GDP.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf

After 7 months of fiscal 2012 the deficit is 720 Bio. $, which is 150 Bio. less than in 2011.

So, why are they predicting 1.33 Trillion $ for this year ?

I think they are setting the expectations too high, so they can say slightly ahead of the election that the deficit is down by about 10-20% compared with last year.

[Tender Branson]

According to my calculations, the budget deficit for this year will be about 7-7.5% of GDP, with 7.1% most likely.

Recent numbers:

2009: 10.1%
2010:   9.1%
2011:   8.7%
2012:   7.1%

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

[phk]

A few points here.

1.) The LFP for older people has actually been slowly increasing since the mid-1990s.

Changes from 2000 to 2010
55-64: 59.3% => 64.9%
65+: 12.9% => 17.4%
75+: 5.3% => 7.4%

2.) Even with a decline attributable to baby boomers, shouldn't their kids entering the labor force be muting that effect? Even if their fertility is ~2 it should be a cohort that is just about the size of their parents, especially if their daughters participate more than their mothers do.

[CARLHAYDEN]

According to my calculations, the budget deficit for this year will be about 7-7.5% of GDP, with 7.1% most likely.

Recent numbers:

2009: 10.1%
2010:   9.1%
2011:   8.7%
2012:   7.1%

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

February 14, 2011, 1:06 p.m. ET

White House Expects Deficit to Spike to $1.65 Trillion

By DAMIAN PALETTA and COREY BOLES

WASHINGTON—The White House projected Monday that the federal deficit would spike to $1.65 trillion in the current fiscal year, the largest dollar amount ever, adding pressure on Democrats and Republicans to tackle growing levels of debt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703361904576143253522341850.html

So, you expect a GDP of approximately $23.2 trillion in 2012?  Really?!?

[Tender Branson]

According to my calculations, the budget deficit for this year will be about 7-7.5% of GDP, with 7.1% most likely.

Recent numbers:

2009: 10.1%
2010:   9.1%
2011:   8.7%
2012:   7.1%

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

February 14, 2011, 1:06 p.m. ET

White House Expects Deficit to Spike to $1.65 Trillion

By DAMIAN PALETTA and COREY BOLES

WASHINGTON—The White House projected Monday that the federal deficit would spike to $1.65 trillion in the current fiscal year, the largest dollar amount ever, adding pressure on Democrats and Republicans to tackle growing levels of debt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703361904576143253522341850.html

So, you expect a GDP of approximately $23.2 trillion in 2012?  Really?!?

What the feck are you talking about, Carl ?

A) You are posting an article from February 2011 - more than 1 year old - about the mid-session projection for the Fiscal 2011 budget.

The article says that the Obama admin predicted a Fiscal 2011 deficit of 1.65 Trillion $, but in fact Fiscal 2011 closed with a 1.299 Trillion $ deficit (= 8.7% of GDP).

Fiscal 2012 is already running 150 Bio. $ behind the Fiscal 2011 numbers after 7 months.

So, I predict a deficit of about 1100 Bio. $ this year, which is 7.1% of GDP this year.

[Senator Sbane]

LOL Carl.

[CARLHAYDEN]

According to my calculations, the budget deficit for this year will be about 7-7.5% of GDP, with 7.1% most likely.

Recent numbers:

2009: 10.1%
2010:   9.1%
2011:   8.7%
2012:   7.1%

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

February 14, 2011, 1:06 p.m. ET

White House Expects Deficit to Spike to $1.65 Trillion

By DAMIAN PALETTA and COREY BOLES

WASHINGTON—The White House projected Monday that the federal deficit would spike to $1.65 trillion in the current fiscal year, the largest dollar amount ever, adding pressure on Democrats and Republicans to tackle growing levels of debt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703361904576143253522341850.html

So, you expect a GDP of approximately $23.2 trillion in 2012?  Really?!?

What the feck are you talking about, Carl ?

A) You are posting an article from February 2011 - more than 1 year old - about the mid-session projection for the Fiscal 2011 budget.

The article says that the Obama admin predicted a Fiscal 2011 deficit of 1.65 Trillion $, but in fact Fiscal 2011 closed with a 1.299 Trillion $ deficit (= 8.7% of GDP).

Fiscal 2012 is already running 150 Bio. $ behind the Fiscal 2011 numbers after 7 months.

So, I predict a deficit of about 1100 Bio. $ this year, which is 7.1% of GDP this year.

Well, lets see what actually happens.

(Which is why I'm saving this quote).

[Big Wiggly Style]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2012/05/17/facebook-prices-421m-shares-at-38-each/

Don't know how "good" this can be considered, but I think it's pretty impressive.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

Well, your prediction for the May jobs report was, er, well...not very accurate.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

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.

Lets discuss revisions:

A little piece of information which hasn’t received much attention in the recent BLS employment release.

• The April job growth figure was revised down to 77,000 from an already weak 115,000.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-01/the-u-dot-s-dot-economy-slips-below-the-mendoza-line

[oakvale]

Cross your fingers and pray, everyone.

The article's behind a paywall, but the headline's all you need.