OT...unemployment rate

[Hank]

Reports show that the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.8% and the stock market hit a 5 year high.

Just sayin' :-)

Hank

[mikeyhsd]

but they forgot to mention  the drop  is major caused by students going back to school.

 

happens every year.

 

 

"Hank" <nineb...@aol.com> wrote in message news:2d87481d-c3fd-497a...@googlegroups.com...

[Bruce S]

That unemployment number is a fraud, and in terms of uninflated dollars
the stock market is anemic.

--
Bruce

"The truth is hate speech for those who hate truth."

[Jan Orme]

On Oct 6, 10:41 am, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 4:06 AM, Hank wrote:
>
> > Reports show that the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.8% and the stock market hit a 5 year high.
>
> > Just sayin' :-)
>
> > Hank
>
> That unemployment number is a fraud, and in terms of uninflated dollars
> the stock market is anemic.
>
> --
> Bruce

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jack-welch-refuses-to-back-down-on-unemployment-numbers-in-fiery-exchange-with-chris-matthews/

Welch said in part:
“You don’t think it’s coincidental that we’ve got the biggest surge
since 1983 in the jobs surge? Come on, Chris,” Welch said, refusing to
back down. “It’s a six percent improvement in employment in two months…
The numbers don’t jibe.”

He continued: “These numbers defy logic. They defy logic. We do not
have a 4 to 5 percent booming economy with 873,000 people added. I
mean, stop it, Chris. On the face of it, we don’t have this GDP. I
love you, but you can’t get there.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chris Mathews must have gotten a "tingle up my leg" when he saw the
numbers.

Am I the only one that smells something cooking....like "books stew?"
I have been wondering when they would stoop this low.

Jan Eric Orme

[Hank]

I'm just reporting what I saw on the news. You can call it fraud or not. I don't care.

On a personal note, most of the people I know are back to work. My investments are growing instead of dropping. YMMV

Hank

[rvfulltime]

On 10/6/2012 4:06 AM, Hank wrote:

True to the news media, they only tell some of the story. They did not say
whether or not those figures were "seasonally adjusted". Come fall, the
unemployment rate usually drops because fewer people are looking for work.
Specifically, students are no longer looking for work. Seasonally Adjusted data
reflects this regular anomaly, just the same as unemployment rates drops in
December and goes back up in January.

Regarding the stock market, the U.S. stock market is one part of a global
investment community. The major players are: U.S. Stock Market, U.S. Bond
Market, European Stock Market, European Bond Market, and Emerging Markets
including China and India. The U.S. Bond Market is at record level low return,
Europe is doing awful, and Emerging Markets are high risk. That leaves the U.S
Stock Market as the best of a group of weak choices.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 15:04:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

A bunch of folks I know are about to freak out the Conservatives.
Under 65, laid off and not looking for work as there is nothing around
to apply for as yet another former job powerhouse closed. Aside from
Kodak GM just announced the center for Fuel Cell research is moving to
Michigan. Something to do with their tax deal timing out. Most of
the workers have sufficient 401K money and a working spouse to just
ride out a couple of years until they start drawing Social Security.

[Hank]

I agree with you about the seasonal adjustment, but for a different reason. Companies are hiring people to work for the Xmas season. My son isn't allowed a to take any vacation until after Xmas.

In regards to the stock market, if we are the best choice, then how bad can it be? :-)

News media, they ALL (even FOX)tell you what they want you to believe. Same as all religions.

Hank <~~~~~able to see thru the smoke and mirros with a single glance :-)

[Frank Howell]

Me thinks that the large increase in part time jobs with the latest BLS job
report are do to harvest times in September in the ag business.



--
Frank Howell

[Bruce S]

On 10/7/2012 3:42 AM, Hank wrote:
> I agree with you about the seasonal adjustment, but for a different reason. Companies are hiring people to work for the Xmas season. My son isn't allowed a to take any vacation until after Xmas.
>
> In regards to the stock market, if we are the best choice, then how bad can it be?:-)
>
> News media, they ALL (even FOX)tell you what they want you to believe. Same as all religions.
>
> Hank <~~~~~able to see thru the smoke and mirros with a single glance:-)

For some facts about unemployment, try reading this:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/september-jobs-114000-unemployment-rate.html

Read the whole thing, but here is his conclusion:

'Given the complete distortions of reality with respect to not counting
people who allegedly dropped out of the work force, it is easy to
misrepresent the headline numbers.

Digging under the surface, the drop in the unemployment rate over the
past two years is nothing but a statistical mirage. Things are much
worse than the reported numbers indicate."

[Hank]

Again, roflmao. I don't need to read someones blog. What makes your link "facts", but the BLS stats are fraud? Why can't your blogger just be wrong? I like I said earlier, you will believe what you have been trained to believe and agree with everything that your were trained to agree with.

You are the Jehovah Witness of the RORT conservatives (which thanksfully, I am not part of). :-)

I know you don't consider me a conservative, but I do and that's what counts. As a MODERATE conservative, it kinda bugs me that the extreme conservatives (not just on RORT) are so overbearing and get so nasty. Kinda reminds me of the extreme Muslims. I just hope it doesn't come to violence in years to come.

Hank

[Bruce S]

On 10/7/2012 1:36 PM, Hank wrote:
>
> Again, roflmao. I don't need to read someones blog. What makes your link "facts", but the BLS stats are fraud? Why can't your blogger just be wrong? I like I said earlier, you will believe what you have been trained to believe and agree with everything that your were trained to agree with.
>
> You are the Jehovah Witness of the RORT conservatives (which thanksfully, I am not part of). :-)
>
> I know you don't consider me a conservative, but I do and that's what counts. As a MODERATE conservative, it kinda bugs me that the extreme conservatives (not just on RORT) are so overbearing and get so nasty. Kinda reminds me of the extreme Muslims. I just hope it doesn't come to violence in years to come.
>
> Hank

You have demonstrated time and time again that you aren't smart enough
to understand the facts even when they are fully explained to you, but
it's a quiet Sunday afternoon, and none of the football games that are
available here involve teams I care to watch, so, I'll waste a few
keystrokes.

Actually, the answer to your question was fully explained in the page I
linked to, but you are so intent on remaining ignorant that you couldn't
be bothered to read it.

The thing that makes the BLS numbers fraud is a combination of the way
they are collected, and the way they are interpreted. But, even if they
are completely accurate, they are a fraud as they are presented because
they make assumptions that have no place in reality.

This is something you can figure out for yourself quite easily. Here
are a couple numbers that come from the government, so you can't ignore
them by claiming that I made them up.

First - since 0bama took office the working age population of the United
States has gone up by about 6 million people.

Second - since 0bama took office the number of people actually working
has gone down by about 250,000 people. (Not placing blame here, just
presenting the numbers.)

Now, here is the question, in your opinion, if the working age
population has gone up, and the number of people working has gone down,
would a real unemployment statistic have gone up or down?

If you did the (very simple) math involved to figure it out, you would
have said the unemployment number should have gone up. Instead, the BLS
tells us that it just went down.

That should cause any functional person to say, "How did that happen?"

The answer is simple - they stopped counting several million people.
They have claimed that none, not one, (zero, zip, NONE) of those 6
million people wanted a job - even though we know that throughout
history, about two thirds of them have always wanted jobs. So, if we
pretend that none of them wants a job, the unemployment rate went down
last month.

On the other hand, if we look at history, and suggest that the same two
thirds of the new people want jobs as has always been the case, what we
discover is that the unemployment rate is about 11% rather than 7.8%.

Doesn't take much math to figure it out, just a little bit of common
sense - so you will still dispute the reality that the numbers as
provided are a fraud.

Here is the link again - read it this time and learn something.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/september-jobs-114000-unemployment-rate.html

Here is another link in which Jack Welch (you might remember him as one
of 0bama's economic advisors) explains another reason the numbers are a
fraud.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2012/10/07/unbelievable_numbers_says_former_ge_ceo_jack_welch

I don't really expect you to read either page - you have said you want
to remain stupid, so there is no reason to expect you to change, but at
least you have the opportunity to learn something.

[nothermark]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:43:57 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

What you are ignoring is that as long as the same methodology is used
all the time the results should be consistent. The level of accuracy
is not as much of an issue as is the consistency of the result.

You are also ignoring one of the significant results of the move to a
self funded retirement system. If one has had a good job and built up
an adequate retirement account there is little pressure for most
displaced workers over somewhere in their mid to late 50's to look for
work. There are few opportunities to get work at anywhere near what
they were paid at before their layoff on one hand. On the other many
can bleed more off their investments than they can earn at a job they
can get so they make a choice not to go back to work on one hand but
are happy to say they wish they still had a job on the other. What no
one asks is "what job" the answer is "their old one".

[Bruce S]

Somebody with a really superficial understanding of how the system works
would probably think that - in fact, an effort to fool the uninformed
was the reason they changed the counting process to the current system.
On the other hand, anyone who actually understands the numbers will
quickly figure out why today's numbers are bunk.

The thing is that in times of "full employment" people enter the
workforce and bring the participation rate up - during Bush's term, when
the unemployment was 4.5%, the participation rate was almost 68%.

Now, when there are no jobs, people quit looking and fall out of the
workforce, so that when we only count those actively seeking work, the
unemployment rate is 7.8%, but the participation rate is 63%.

What that means is that almost 5% of the labor force has simply given up
- they would be working if jobs existed, but the absence of jobs takes
them out of the count. If they were still counted, unemployment would
be about 11% - just what it has been since the peak of the recession.

And if you look at the U6 unemployment rate, it has remained constant at
about 14% thru the whole mess.

To stop counting people does make them less unemployed.

> You are also ignoring one of the significant results of the move to a
> self funded retirement system. If one has had a good job and built up
> an adequate retirement account there is little pressure for most
> displaced workers over somewhere in their mid to late 50's to look for
> work. There are few opportunities to get work at anywhere near what
> they were paid at before their layoff on one hand. On the other many
> can bleed more off their investments than they can earn at a job they
> can get so they make a choice not to go back to work on one hand but
> are happy to say they wish they still had a job on the other. What no
> one asks is "what job" the answer is "their old one".

Those are a very small part of the workforce. And, if jobs were
available they would be working, so they are actually "unemployed" and
should be counted as such.

[Will Sill]

On 10/7/12 6:43 PM, Bruce S wrote in part:

> This is something you can figure out for yourself quite easily. Here
> are a couple numbers that come from the government, so you can't ignore
> them by claiming that I made them up.
>
> First - since 0bama took office the working age population of the United
> States has gone up by about 6 million people.
>
> Second - since 0bama took office the number of people actually working
> has gone down by about 250,000 people. (Not placing blame here, just
> presenting the numbers.)
>
> Now, here is the question, in your opinion, if the working age
> population has gone up, and the number of people working has gone down,
> would a real unemployment statistic have gone up or down?
>
> If you did the (very simple) math involved to figure it out, you would
> have said the unemployment number should have gone up. Instead, the BLS
> tells us that it just went down.

Bruce, you've made it too simple for the blindingly brilliant intellects
of Hank & N'Mark. As long as the administration's equivalent of Baghdad
Bob keeps dishing out brazen deceptions, they'll accept those numbers as
Gospel.

We are surrounded and infiltrated by morons. They think high stock
prices are a sign of prosperity, but high gas prices are a tragedy that
the gummit should deal with. They want to raise the minimum wage but
are oblivious to the truth that it INREASES unemployment. They blame
the rich for poverty, blame guns for crime, and blame Republicans for
the national debt.

Will

[nothermark]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:47:36 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

Somebody with a really superficial understanding of the issues
involved would buy your explanation. That seems to be the stock in
trade of the Conservative blogs. They serve up a simple strawman to
shoot down as an example of a complex situation that requires a
different if not more complex answer.

I cannot believe some of the folks writing these blogs do not
understand what they write about. That leaves me thinking they
prostitute their standing as "experts" to provide ego boosts for the
folks in the Conservative side who need to feel smart and superior.
"See, X says this so it must be true' is the mantra no matter how
wrong it is.

>
>The thing is that in times of "full employment" people enter the
>workforce and bring the participation rate up - during Bush's term, when
>the unemployment was 4.5%, the participation rate was almost 68%.
>
>Now, when there are no jobs, people quit looking and fall out of the
>workforce, so that when we only count those actively seeking work, the
>unemployment rate is 7.8%, but the participation rate is 63%.
>
>What that means is that almost 5% of the labor force has simply given up
>- they would be working if jobs existed, but the absence of jobs takes
>them out of the count. If they were still counted, unemployment would
>be about 11% - just what it has been since the peak of the recession.
>
>And if you look at the U6 unemployment rate, it has remained constant at
>about 14% thru the whole mess.
>
>To stop counting people does make them less unemployed.

Do you think aynyone who is interested does not know this? The same
basic system has been in play for many years. Probably as long as
most of us have been working. The whine you posted is the same old
issue that we have seen for years. It is an arguement between the
theoreticians as to what system is better. One can run a statistical
curve with sampling or try to do 100% sample.

The sampling techniqe is well understood. It was developed many years
ago to test munitions as one cannot shoot the same primer twice.
Sample size and accuracy tables are readily available so one does not
even need to know the math behind it.

>
>> You are also ignoring one of the significant results of the move to a
>> self funded retirement system. If one has had a good job and built up
>> an adequate retirement account there is little pressure for most
>> displaced workers over somewhere in their mid to late 50's to look for
>> work. There are few opportunities to get work at anywhere near what
>> they were paid at before their layoff on one hand. On the other many
>> can bleed more off their investments than they can earn at a job they
>> can get so they make a choice not to go back to work on one hand but
>> are happy to say they wish they still had a job on the other. What no
>> one asks is "what job" the answer is "their old one".
>
>Those are a very small part of the workforce. And, if jobs were
>available they would be working, so they are actually "unemployed" and
>should be counted as such.

They are counted as long as they say they are looking. Most do. They
just do not look to hard and want something that is roughly equivalent
to what they had. Hard to find and they know it. The one's that
just want to work can always go to school bus driving, Walmart
greeter, or a host of other jobs that do not pay well but have a high
turnover.

[Bruce S]

You are correct. ;-)

[Jan Orme]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I said in another thread....IT is a waste of time. IT is not even
Mark! IT says so in it's mail addy. And....IT is not even really here!
It also says IT is "not here" in it's mail addy!

IT is time..........Kick it to the curb and ignore IT! It ain't here!

Jan

[Lone Haranguer]

And i had 2 unicorns munching apples in the orchard. I can even
show you the turds they left as proof.
LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

What stock are you recommending if The Obamanable one is reelected?
LZ

[Hank]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 10:03:56 PM UTC-4, Lone Haranguer wrote:

>
> > In regards to the stock market, if we are the best choice, then how bad can it be? :-)
>
> >
>
> > News media, they ALL (even FOX)tell you what they want you to believe. Same as all religions.
>
> >
>
> > Hank <~~~~~able to see thru the smoke and mirros with a single glance :-)
>
> >
>
> What stock are you recommending if The Obamanable one is reelected?
>
> LZ

It doesn't matter who is elected. The market is on an upswing. Pick one.

But, at your age, and this wishy-washy economy, you should have more in tax free bonds than stocks unless you are a big gambler. :-)

Hank

[Hank]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 6:43:59 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>
> You have demonstrated time and time again that you aren't smart enough
>
> to understand the facts even when they are fully explained to you, but
>
> it's a quiet Sunday afternoon, and none of the football games that are
>
> available here involve teams I care to watch, so, I'll waste a few
>
> keystrokes.
>

> Bruce


Unlike you, I am smart enough not to believe every persons blog. I am glad I amused you on a boring Sunday. :-)

Hank

[Bruce S]

You still can't read for comprehension, can you?

You didn't amuse me, I amused myself providing information that I knew
you would ignore.

[Hank]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:25:34 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>
>
> You still can't read for comprehension, can you?
>
>
>
> You didn't amuse me, I amused myself providing information that I knew
>
> you would ignore.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

Seriously, do you really believe there are more people out of work now than When O took office?

Hank

[Bruce S]

Yes - a lot more.

Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
Total employment Jan. 2009 - 133,561,000

Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000

So, the population has gone up by almost 8 million people, but the
number of people holding jobs has gone up by 61 thousand. The only way
to claim that unemployment is less now than then is to believe that NONE
of those 8 Million people want jobs.

Do you really believe that?

Traditionally about two thirds of the working age people want jobs, so
if we make the assumption that about 2/3rds of that 8 million people
want jobs, that would mean that almost 6 million people are not being
counted as unemployed but should be. Doing the math in my head, that
comes to about 3% more unemployment - or a total of about 11% instead of
the 7.8% they are claiming.

Of course the percentage unemployed goes down if you quit counting
people, but a person would have to be an idiot to believe that none of
those people want jobs.

[Bruce S]

I just noticed a typo in what I wrote - I said employment went up by 61
thousand, I meant it went down by 61 thousand. The actual employment
numbers just above that line are correct, I just typed the math backwards.

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

Hank" wrote Seriously, do you really believe there are

more people out of work now than When O took office?<<<

Go look in Google and you will see that we need 120,000 new
jobs per month, JUST TO KEEP UP with the growth in population.
Now go back and see how many months we added MORE than 120,000 jobs.
When the fawning press says we added 80,000 jobs this month,
what they really mean is we had a net LOSS of 40,000 jobs.
When Obama says he created 1.2 million jobs, the fact is,
if you count the number of new people to the workforce,
there was a 1.44 million net LOSS of jobs

--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[Hank]

You can't just use the working age stats and employment stats for figuring unemployment. There are other factors that have to be taken into consideration. It's not as simple as you think.

If you wasn't so lazy, you'd figure out how to delete a post after you send it. Sound familiar? :-)

Hank

[Will Sill]

On 10/11/12 3:44 AM, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:

> Go look in Google and you will see that we need 120,000 new
> jobs per month, JUST TO KEEP UP with the growth in population.
> Now go back and see how many months we added MORE than 120,000 jobs.
> When the fawning press says we added 80,000 jobs this month, what they
> really mean is we had a net LOSS of 40,000 jobs.
> When Obama says he created 1.2 million jobs, the fact is,
> if you count the number of new people to the workforce, there was a 1.44
> million net LOSS of jobs

That is correct, of course. Any sentient human can see - even using the
BLS's own data - that a claimed reduction in the unemployment rate is a
brazen fiction.

Unfortunately, the "transparency" the Occupier promised has proved to be
a matter of smoke and mirrors.

Will

[Max]

ROFL.
I'm going to wait to see if someone else comments on that.

[Bruce S]

You still haven't answered my question (and I DID answer yours): Do you
really believe that NONE of those 8 million people who came into the
workforce age group wanted jobs?

It's a simple yes or no question.

Fewer people have jobs today than had jobs 4 years ago.
8 million people entered the employment age group.

How is that possible?

[Bruce S]

Since he is correct, what comment would you expect to see?

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:45:40 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

-------------------------------

Something tells me that Hank is going to pull a nothermark and not
provide that answer.

If it was nothermark he would reply with a canard........ if you do
get a reply expect just that...... a canard.

mike
--

Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/

[Bruce S]

I fully expect Hank to respond by telling me that when the government
says 1 + 1 - 3, then the government is correct.

[Bruce S]

> says 1 + 1 = 3, then the government is correct.

[bill horne]

Not only all of that, but the government (BLS) says:
-------------------------------------------------------
Not all of the wide range of job situations in the American economy
fit neatly into a given category. For example, people are considered
employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the
survey week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well
as regular full-time, year-round employment.
--------------------------------------------------------

"*any* work at all for *pay* or *profit* during the survey *week*".

That means, for example, that a person who worked one hour for minimum
wage - or even less than an hour for less than minimum wage - is
considered "employed" for that week.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

[Hank]

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:45:36 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>
>
> You still haven't answered my question (and I DID answer yours): Do you
>
> really believe that NONE of those 8 million people who came into the
>
> workforce age group wanted jobs?
>
>

I don't think any of them WANTED a job, but they knew they had to. :-)

>
> It's a simple yes or no question.
>
>
>
> Fewer people have jobs today than had jobs 4 years ago.
>
> 8 million people entered the employment age group.
>
>
>
> How is that possible?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

If the the older folk didn't lose all their 401k's during the bush years, they would be retired, therefore, job openings wouldn't be so scarce.

You can manipulate the numbers anyway you see fit, just like everyone else. That doesn't mean they are correct. For example: "bad data in, bad data out". You, nor I, know ALL the TRUE figures required to make an informed decision.

Maybe your area of the country is different, but here in Ohio, employment and the economy is stablizing according to reports and what I see happening.

I voted for McCain, but even at that time, I knew we weren't getting out of the hole in a measly 4 years. Neither will O or Romney in the next decade or 2.

In closing, you believe what you want to believe and do the math as you wish. It doesn't really matter. I am offering MY POV.

Also, you posted this twice. haven't learned to use you Newsreader yet? :-)

Hank

[Bruce S]

On 10/11/2012 11:43 AM, Hank wrote:
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:45:36 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
>>
>> You still haven't answered my question (and I DID answer yours): Do you
>> really believe that NONE of those 8 million people who came into the
>> workforce age group wanted jobs?
>
> I don't think any of them WANTED a job, but they knew they had to. :-)
>>
>> It's a simple yes or no question.
>>
>> Fewer people have jobs today than had jobs 4 years ago.
>> 8 million people entered the employment age group.
>>
>> How is that possible?
>>

>> Bruce
>
> If the the older folk didn't lose all their 401k's during the bush years, they would be retired, therefore, job openings wouldn't be so scarce.

That statement makes no logical sense, but from you that is to be
expected. Can you do simple math? You know, like addition,
subtraction, multiplication and division. Do you understand that if the
number of possible workers goes up, and the number of actual workers
goes down, that means that the rate of unemployment has gone up?

What that means is that if the government's own numbers about how many
people are working are correct, that means that their own numbers about
how many people are unemployed are a lie. You can't have it both ways.

> You can manipulate the numbers anyway you see fit, just like everyone else. That doesn't mean they are correct. For example: "bad data in, bad data out". You, nor I, know ALL the TRUE figures required to make an informed decision.

So, which is it, did they lie about the number of people working, or the
number of people unemployed?

> Maybe your area of the country is different, but here in Ohio, employment and the economy is stablizing according to reports and what I see happening.

Having fewer people working today than when he took office might be a
good thing where you are, but I'll bet that for the 23 million
unemployed and underemployed around the country, it's not good enough.

> In closing, you believe what you want to believe and do the math as you wish. It doesn't really matter. I am offering MY POV.

And your POV is that when the government says 1 + 1 = 3 they must be right?

[nothermark]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:32:59 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

Seriously, Bruce will argue that point just to oppose you.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:50:45 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You made another mistake on the "Traditionally about two thirds of the
working age people want jobs,". That is a fairly recent development.
Prior to the boomers growing up the number was lower than that.

It also depends on how the survey is done. Given the large number of
folks who retired early, voluntary or not, it depends on whether one
asks if they want a job or if they looked for work. The answer is
potentially quite different.

[nothermark]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:15:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

A lot of servers will not honor a delete command.

[Hank]

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:06:01 PM UTC-4, nothermark wrote:

>
> >Seriously, do you really believe there are more people out of work now than When O took office?
>
> >
>
> >Hank
>
>
>
> Seriously, Bruce will argue that point just to oppose you.

I know that. What amazes me is that he and others will not even question Romneys o rthe republican parties figures, just O's. I question them both and don't trust either, including any blog or even the BLS.

Hank <~~~~ thinks everyone has an agenda

[Hank]

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:22:05 PM UTC-4, nothermark wrote:

> >If you wasn't so lazy, you'd figure out how to delete a post after you send it. Sound familiar? :-)
>
> >
>
> >Hank
>
>
>
>
>
> A lot of servers will not honor a delete command.

Maybe he should go thru a better server. I'll recommend AOL. :-)

Seriously, I'm just pissin with him because he always tells me I need a better newsreader. It's one of those "pot callin the kettle black" thingies.

Hank

[Bruce S]

I provided the actual government approved numbers - there are fewer
people with jobs in this country today than there were when 0bama took
office.

Not merely by percentage, but fewer actual people working.

Combine that with the fact that there are also almost 8 million more
working age people, and only an idiot would argue that unemployment has
gone down.

[Bruce S]

Is it your position that none of that 8 million wanted jobs?

Any percentage you pick raises the true unemployment rate. So - you can
claim that only half, instead of two thirds want jobs, and that means
that we have another (uncounted) 4 million unemployed (rather than the 6
million I estimated). Do you think that changes the reality that the
unemployed are under counted, and that in truth the unemployment is
much higher than 7.8%?

[nothermark]

I'm waiting to see how we can do anything about it unless we pull back
the jobs we exported.

[nothermark]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:44:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

The BLS numbers are probably pretty good. I heard an interesting take
on that the other day. All the numbers are put together by carreer
civil servants. They are fairly untouchable as long as they do not
get caught cooking the books. That would be grounds for getting them
tossed. In short, incorrect numbers are all they need to worry about.

[nothermark]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:32:00 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Or only an idiot would assume all those folks want to go to work.

We got into the "put everybody to work" mode as the boomers hit the
job market. That distorted the number of probable working folks high.
A lot of those folks see the problems that creates for folks who want
a family and are not buying into it. It also created a large number
of folks who, combined with the shift to 402K type plans, are able to
retire early because they can and want to. Add in the folks who
retired after 20-30 years in government service with a nice pension
and there is quite a large number of folks who may well not be
interested in going back to work. I really do not think we know what
"normal" employment is for folks today. Too many alternative
lifestyles combined with too many pressures not to work.

As I think about it I know at least 3 people who are not working
because they were forced into early retirement then became the primary
care giver for their parent(s). They cannot find help to replace them
for what they can earn if they went back to "work". I put work in
quotes because all of them I know would rather be working, it's less
hassle, but they are not looking for a job.

[nothermark]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:38:25 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

I think you are confusing folks who want a job with folks who do not
need or want one. Not the welfare recipients Mike is whining about.
Folks who were well paid when they worked and now are under 65, not
working for various reasons, and not looking to go back to work.

All the numbers can give you is how many folks there are and how many
say they want a job. The numbers do not tell why the folks are not
working or looking. It is as easy and as relative to say that they
number has dropped to reflect the number of under 65 folks who do not
need to work now. That is good news to a lot of us. ;-)

There is another thread with a longer answer so I am dropping this
one.

[nothermark]

I'd go here and look for a cross correlation to folks on early
retirement. That is probably the answer. The more one is past 55 the
harder it becomes to get a decent job if one is laid off. If one has
the resources then why push to take a low paying job?

http://www.cse.sc.edu/~buell/References/BureauLaborStatistics/art3full2014.pdf

[Bruce S]

In my opinion, being forced to retire is the same as being unemployed.
I retired at age 57 because I wanted to retire - I would have retired at
23, but couldn't afford it. I had planned on retiring at age 55 but
because of my father's health, I continued to work till after he died
and my mother moved back to AZ and stabilized.

So I was done working at age 57 - but that had NOTHING to do with the
economy, or availability of work - I just wanted out. On the other
hand, if I had been laid off and ended up spending my retirement money
to survive because I couldn't find a job, I would have considered myself
unemployed, not retired.

[Bruce S]

On 10/12/2012 1:55 AM, nothermark wrote:

That is a completely asinine assertion. We have an economy that is so
stagnant that many experts have already declared that we are in a
recession. We are creating so few jobs that we cannot even keep up with
population growth. How stupid do you have to be to believe that the
entire 8 million under-counted unemployed are old folks taking early
retirement. Look at the U6 number - it has remained at over 14% since
the recession. People are not retiring, they are giving up.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:43:24 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

Did you retire early or give up?

[Bruce S]

The difference is that I retired because I wanted out of the work force
- and even then 2 years later than I wanted to - and the economy was
going strong at the time. I could have continued to work for as long as
I wanted to - I could still be working as a probation officer if I
wanted to.

The people we are talking about are people who still wanted to work, but
were forced out due to the bad economy. That is a major difference,
even if you can't figure it out.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:38:32 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

OMFG You did not work until you were 65???? How could you look
yourself in the face in a mirror?


;-)

My point is that the aberration is trying to put everybody between 18
and 65 or whatever into the work force. We never achieved that
number. We did get a peak with the boomers because a lot more women
chose to work instead of stay home and live off of some man. For a
variety of reasons that number is probably dipping back down as folks
decide that somebody home with the kids is important, or a host of
other reasons already mentioned.

I was looking for a historical trend in workforce size and found this:

http://www.prb.org/pdf08/63.2uslabor.pdf

If you look at the numbers the historical workforce is closer to 50%
than the 2/3 you tossed out. If you have better numbers it would be
interesting. If not the 2/3 is your first problem as it is too high.

[Vito]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote
| Max <thesam...@att.net> wrote: ....

| >> When the fawning press says we added 80,000 jobs this month, what
they
| >> really mean is we had a net LOSS of 40,000 jobs.
| >> When Obama says he created 1.2 million jobs, the fact is,
| >> if you count the number of new people to the workforce, there was a
1.44
| >> million net LOSS of jobs
| >>
| >
| >ROFL.
| >I'm going to wait to see if someone else comments on that.
|
|
| I'm waiting to see how we can do anything about it unless we pull back
| the jobs we exported.

Forget that. That could only be done if US labor was willing to work for
overseas $$$ and/or Americans were willing to pay much more for products.

[nothermark]

From the limited number of cases I have seen the difference is not
that great on one hand. On the other, we cannot bleed money forever.
Do you want to be ruled by the Chinese?

[Bruce S]

Even if you are correct that it is 50% rather than 66%, that still means
4 million people are not being counted as unemployed, even though they
want to work.

Today there are fewer people holding jobs than there were when 0bama
took office.

Your claim is that NONE of the 8 million people who entered the
workforce in the last 4 years want jobs. That is an asinine assertion.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:43:04 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

You still have not shown who those people are or even proof they
exist. All you have is a raw number and an assumption it means
something. I gave you a host of reasons why it may not and why the
governmnet numbers are probably correct. Can't you come up with
anything factual that does better than that?

[Bruce S]

OK, lets try this question from another direction. We KNOW FOR A FACT
that there are fewer people working today than there were when 0bama
took office. We also KNOW FOR A FACT that the working age population in
this country has gone up by almost 8 million people in that same time frame.

So, you explain it. Why, at this point in history, are 8 million
people, many of whom would have been seeking jobs in times past, not
seeking jobs today?

And bear in mind that anyone FORCED out of the job market is unemployed
and should be counted as such.
People who simply gave up because no jobs were available are unemployed.
People who stopped looking because they can't live on minimum wage are
unemployed.

So, why do none of those 8 million people want jobs?

[nothermark]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:41:23 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

I gave you a long list of why people choose not to work. You are
trying to force an issue that is not there. If someone decides that
going back to work does not make economic sense that does not make
them "unemployed". It means they have taken advantage of
circumstances that do not require them to work or make it undesirable
to work.

In my relatively small world I know more folks who retired early and
are not looking than I do who worked all the way to 65/66 like I did.
That is a direct result of the 401K, one does not have to work until
65 to get a pension. A lot more folks are covered by 20 good years
to get retiement for a lot of governmnet and some private sector jobs.
I agree that some did have the decision made for them but then decided
they had better things to do than to go back to work. Some had
planned and executed the plan to be free earlier than 65 and some saw
a chance and grabbed it. A few of us wanted to keep working and did.
I may look at the job market next year and I may not. I would like
some short run contract work just to keep playing with the goodies.

Some of them fall into the third issue. With folks living longer I
have several friends and am in a situation where we are care givers to
parents. With more folks living into their 80's and 90's more folks in
their late 50's and 60's are finding themselves in a position where it
makes more economic sense to care for mom than it does to go back to
work and pay somebody else to do it. It sounds like that was a factor
for you.

Another significant group were dual income professionals. Their
spouse is still working and making more than enough to get by on.
Think Vito type stories.

The more I think about it the more convinced I am that the driver is
the shift to the 401K. Folks who depend on a company pension usually
had to work to 65 to get it. I can remember some pretty beat up folks
hobbling in to work to get their pension. I did something like that
to max my Social Security. OTOH I know a lot of folks who did not
need to worry about that. When they got laid off before 65 they just
looked at their package and decided they could start drawing off their
interest from their 401K and live well enough to stop working. If you
have over a million stashed it is still quite possible. ;-)

[Vito]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote

| >Forget that. That could only be done if US labor was willing to work
for
| >overseas $$$ and/or Americans were willing to pay much more for
products.
| >
|
| From the limited number of cases I have seen the difference is not
| that great on one hand. On the other, we cannot bleed money forever.
| Do you want to be ruled by the Chinese?

It is not a matter of "want".

[Bruce S]

Your reasons are completely irrational. For anyone to believe that at
every other time in human history people chose to work, but that in the
0bama administration they voluntarily decided to take some time off is
insane.

So, after Romney is elected, and he signs a couple executive orders
which permit employers to hire a million people between January and
March, when 6 million of those uncounted people decide to apply for
those million jobs, will you have a whole new set of excuses for the
sudden increase in unemployment to 11%?

[odys...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 4:06:33 AM UTC-7, Hank wrote:
> Reports show that the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.8% and the stock market hit a 5 year high.
>
>
>
> Just sayin' :-)
>
>
>
> Hank

true alot of people do not pay taxes especially the pan handelers. but hey if your making thoudsands a year you wouldnt have to worry about it. you can be making a thousand plus a week with Motor Club of America and you get benefits like AAA. heres more info : MORE INFO: http://mcaworkforce.com/?a=13847

[Max]

On 10/13/2012 10:41 PM, odys...@yahoo.com wrote:

A semi-clever spam.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 17:58:32 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

[nothermark]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 17:58:32 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

Your idea that the reasons are irrational is irrational. They are the
reasons folks I know used as they quit working before 65. The only
tie in to Obama is that they hit their late 50's or early 60' after he
was elected. Most, if not all, of these folks intended to retire
before 65 20 years ago.

The only difference is that they thought they would have even more
money. We had a couple that are retired NY Tier 1 teachers who
retired at 55 and 53 respectively. She got a buyout. They are now in
their early 60's and "getting by" on a measly $100,000 or so a year.
That's after they bought the place in SC. They are on the road about
1/2 of the year. I know a half dozen or so couples and another dozen
singles in the same shape.

You need to remember. The boomers are hitting retirement age. The
leading edge is past early retirement. That puts a large population
bubble at a point where they have options. Half are broke and cannot
retire. The other half is in pretty good shape so they could afford
to bail early and often had planned on doing it..

>
>So, after Romney is elected, and he signs a couple executive orders
>which permit employers to hire a million people between January and
>March, when 6 million of those uncounted people decide to apply for
>those million jobs, will you have a whole new set of excuses for the
>sudden increase in unemployment to 11%?

Hardly anybody I know has any intention of looking. I know a couple
in their early 50's that are looking now or expect to be looking if
Kodak goes belly up. All of them could stop now and live comfortably
if they had too. Two income engineers with the kids gone, the house
paid for, and a couple million in the 401K because they were socking
it away in the good years before things fell apart.

That is also making a lot of assumptions I would not make. Even if
Romney is elected I do not think he can create and additional million
jobs that easily or that fast.

[Hank]

When I retired in 1996 at the age of 48, O wasn't in office, so don't blame him. I am only 64, so according to you, I am considered one of the unemployed because I don't have a job? I know MANY police and FF's who retired at 48. I believe your FACTS are skewed to the limit and doesn't show the TRUE figures.

A friend got laid off a couple years ago, ran out of unemployment. He is 57. He has no plans to go back to work because his house is paid for, his wife works, they have no bills. According to your figures, he is still counted as unemployed.

I probably PERSONALLY know hundreds like me and my friend.

Hank <~~~~ still part of the unemployed and lovin it! :-)

[Bruce S]

On 10/14/2012 11:36 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> >Your reasons are completely irrational. For anyone to believe that at
>> >every other time in human history people chose to work, but that in the
>> >0bama administration they voluntarily decided to take some time off is
>> >insane.

> Your idea that the reasons are irrational is irrational. They are the
> reasons folks I know used as they quit working before 65. The only
> tie in to Obama is that they hit their late 50's or early 60' after he
> was elected. Most, if not all, of these folks intended to retire
> before 65 20 years ago.

Those people have been part of oursociety for at least 50 years. There
is absolutely no reason to believe that there are more of them today
than there were in the past. That means that AT LEAST 50% of the 8
million people who entered the job market would have stayed there - and
that means that an additional 4 million people are unemployed.

>> >So, after Romney is elected, and he signs a couple executive orders
>> >which permit employers to hire a million people between January and
>> >March, when 6 million of those uncounted people decide to apply for
>> >those million jobs, will you have a whole new set of excuses for the
>> >sudden increase in unemployment to 11%?

> Hardly anybody I know has any intention of looking. I know a couple
> in their early 50's that are looking now or expect to be looking if
> Kodak goes belly up. All of them could stop now and live comfortably
> if they had too. Two income engineers with the kids gone, the house
> paid for, and a couple million in the 401K because they were socking
> it away in the good years before things fell apart.
>
> That is also making a lot of assumptions I would not make. Even if
> Romney is elected I do not think he can create and additional million
> jobs that easily or that fast.

Whether he can or not was not the issue - the sudden increase in people
seeking jobs was. Your belief is that EVERY person who is currently
uncounted because they are not actively looking for jobs does not want a
job. My contention is that at least half would be seeking jobs if there
were any jobs available. If they would be looking for work, they are
unemployed and should not be ignored.

If, for any reason, an additional million people suddenly decide that
the economy has improved enough to provide jobs, so they start seeking
jobs again, they will be counted again - and that will raise the
unemployment rate by a million people. If we see the traditional norm
of at least half, and more recently 2/3rds of the general working age
people seeking jobs, we will see unemployment go up by 4 to 6 million
people. Every one of those people who would be seeking employment if
jobs were available, should be counted right not as unemployed.

But, if you want to pretend that you understand the unemployment
problem, provide a realistic explanation of why 8 million people entered
the "workforce" but 61 thousand fewer people are working today than were
working 4 years ago. Again bear in mind that any believable explanation
MUST take into consideration that between 1990 and 2008 2/3rds of those
people would have been seeking jobs. Early retirement, house husbands
and the like might bring that down to 1/2, but that means you need to
explain the missing 4 million potential workers.

[Bruce S]

On 10/14/2012 1:29 PM, Hank wrote:
> When I retired in 1996 at the age of 48, O wasn't in office, so don't blame him. I am only 64, so according to you, I am considered one of the unemployed because I don't have a job? I know MANY police and FF's who retired at 48. I believe your FACTS are skewed to the limit and doesn't show the TRUE figures.
>
> A friend got laid off a couple years ago, ran out of unemployment. He is 57. He has no plans to go back to work because his house is paid for, his wife works, they have no bills. According to your figures, he is still counted as unemployed.
>
> I probably PERSONALLY know hundreds like me and my friend.
>
> Hank <~~~~ still part of the unemployed and lovin it!:-)

So, here is the same question I asked mark - see if you can provide a
believable answer.

Since 0bama took office almost 8 million people have entered the
workforce age group. Historically 2/3rds of those people would have
been seeking jobs (about 5 million people). However, today there are 61
thousand FEWER people employed than there were 4 years ago.

We can assume that some people have always retired early, that some
people have always chosen to be housewives and househusbands, and that
some people have always chosen to be vagrants. We can assume those
things because historically only 2/3rds of the working age group is
actually working or seeking work.

So, what has changed that has caused a number of people equal to 100% of
new workforce people to drop out of the work force? (Rather than the
half from our parents generation, or the 1/3rd from our generation.)

Why, suddenly, in the last four years, and never before in history, are
all those people making the choice to leave the work force.

[Hank]

Just so I understand you correctly...

Are you saying that ONLY because of Obama, there are 8 million MORE people unemployed in the workforce age? If so, how many were unemployed in the work force age BEFORE Obama took office? How much has the workforce age grown in the last 4 years due to population increase?

You seem to think that there were no employment ( or economy ) problems before Obama took office.

Hank

[nothermark]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:25:53 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/14/2012 11:36 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>> >Your reasons are completely irrational. For anyone to believe that at
>>> >every other time in human history people chose to work, but that in the
>>> >0bama administration they voluntarily decided to take some time off is
>>> >insane.
>
>> Your idea that the reasons are irrational is irrational. They are the
>> reasons folks I know used as they quit working before 65. The only
>> tie in to Obama is that they hit their late 50's or early 60' after he
>> was elected. Most, if not all, of these folks intended to retire
>> before 65 20 years ago.
>
>Those people have been part of oursociety for at least 50 years. There
>is absolutely no reason to believe that there are more of them today
>than there were in the past. That means that AT LEAST 50% of the 8
>million people who entered the job market would have stayed there - and
>that means that an additional 4 million people are unemployed.

Not true. There were probably a significant number of folks who were
doing the 20 and out in public safety jobs but that number was
increased very significantly in the late 70's/early 80's. The 401K
plan was changed then to make it into a retirement plane. Companies
forced their workers into the plans to get out from under pension
obligations. That was when a lot more folks started doing the "if I
defer 20% of my income tax free" calculations. If one was 30 then the
numbers looked good for retirement before 65 in 2015. Those folks had
a good run with their money. That is who we are talking about now as
they are in the right age group. They also could usually look forward
to around 20-30 good years before they were caught in the outsourcing.

>
>>> >So, after Romney is elected, and he signs a couple executive orders
>>> >which permit employers to hire a million people between January and
>>> >March, when 6 million of those uncounted people decide to apply for
>>> >those million jobs, will you have a whole new set of excuses for the
>>> >sudden increase in unemployment to 11%?
>
>> Hardly anybody I know has any intention of looking. I know a couple
>> in their early 50's that are looking now or expect to be looking if
>> Kodak goes belly up. All of them could stop now and live comfortably
>> if they had too. Two income engineers with the kids gone, the house
>> paid for, and a couple million in the 401K because they were socking
>> it away in the good years before things fell apart.
>>
>> That is also making a lot of assumptions I would not make. Even if
>> Romney is elected I do not think he can create and additional million
>> jobs that easily or that fast.
>
>
>Whether he can or not was not the issue - the sudden increase in people
>seeking jobs was. Your belief is that EVERY person who is currently
>uncounted because they are not actively looking for jobs does not want a
>job. My contention is that at least half would be seeking jobs if there
>were any jobs available. If they would be looking for work, they are
>unemployed and should not be ignored.

I never said "EVERY". I am sure there are a few folks who would
change their mind and cash in on an open job market if we suddenly had
a huge demand for workers. I also know that there is also a certain
amount of flexibility in younger workers as children get to school age
or similar events occur that change personal conditions.

What I said was the numbers we are getting now are as good as they
ever were. I have also said that there are more early retiree's than
their used to be for a variety of reasons as outlined. The number of
early retiree's is a direct effect if changes in retirement law made
in 1978 that changed 401K'd from a way to stash a bonus to a full
blown retirement plan. That resulted in a lot of folks who have a
nice nest egg and could bail when offered an early out or when pushed
out before 65. There are more of those folks than we previously had
in our history.

I have also said that there are jobs for the folks that really
want/need "a job". There are high turnover jobs that have bad hours
but are always there for folks who just need to go to work.

I can also tell you that there will be a significant number of folks
who will work as long as they can because they do not have a pension
or a 401K and they cannot live on their Social Security.

>
>If, for any reason, an additional million people suddenly decide that
>the economy has improved enough to provide jobs, so they start seeking
>jobs again, they will be counted again - and that will raise the
>unemployment rate by a million people. If we see the traditional norm
>of at least half, and more recently 2/3rds of the general working age
>people seeking jobs, we will see unemployment go up by 4 to 6 million
>people. Every one of those people who would be seeking employment if
>jobs were available, should be counted right not as unemployed.

We have never had 2/3 of the working age population working. That
surprised me too but I gave you the numbers some time back.

There is no question that if a million people suddenly decided to go
back to work it would cause a numbers aberration. OTOH it is more
likely that an additional million would decide to retire early as they
decide they can get enough out of their retirement plan to get by and
work has ceased to be fun. The attitude about work is also different
than it was for our parents.

>
>But, if you want to pretend that you understand the unemployment
>problem, provide a realistic explanation of why 8 million people entered
>the "workforce" but 61 thousand fewer people are working today than were
>working 4 years ago. Again bear in mind that any believable explanation
>MUST take into consideration that between 1990 and 2008 2/3rds of those
>people would have been seeking jobs. Early retirement, house husbands
>and the like might bring that down to 1/2, but that means you need to
>explain the missing 4 million potential workers.

You are also riding the leading edge of the baby boom. There is an
aberrantly large number of folks who are hitting retirement age so it
would be reasonable to expect significantly more folks to be retiring
and retiring early due to the shift in retirement plans to the 401K.
The predicted drop in the number of workers as the boomers retire is
old news.

I have also said that there is no single magic explanation that would
fit all folks all the time but there are a sufficient number of
different explanations, some of which you, yourself, used, to explain
why folks choose to stay retired even though they are not working and
below 65.

I will add that 65 is not longer of any significant consequence as
Social Security raised the retirement age for folks currently
contemplating retirement to 66 and 67 in the reasonbly near future.

Your 1990-2008 number does not take into account that folks then were
lucky if they had a pension and 401K combination as pensions started
dissapearing around 1980 as the changes in the 401K law kicked in.
That was done to make pensions portable for a variety of reasons.
Folks in that time periond did not have enough time to build as big a
fund as folks who are retiring in the last few years did. Having said
that I knew folks with over a million in their 401K in the late
1990's. There was a lot of fast growth during the dotcomm bubble.

In short you are mixing apples and oranges when you compare folks in
the 1990-2008 period with folks since 2008. You now have an
aberrantly large population of retiree's some of whom are well set to
retire before 65. In fact, as I think about it I was an abberation in
my circle as I worked to 66 and L will work until 68. Everybody else
we know near retirement age bailed early and was not interested in
looking after they exited their employent. We know many folks who
retired in their 50's, more who retired in their early 60's and only a
few who worked or are planning to work until they reach the SS "full"
retirement age of 66-67.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:00:22 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

It is not a question of "me figuring it out". I understand the deal.
I just have no investmernt in trying to prove the number low or
complaint about folks not working to 65. I do know a lot of folks who
would prohibit public pensions being paid out before the age of 65 but
I am not one of them and do not support it.

I can not find any information showing a large number of the folks you
are talking about exist. That seems to indicate they are the 8% give
or take that report as unemployed. That number is probably diluted by
folks who intend to retire but are taking advantage of unemployment as
long as they can get it. I know folks who have done that too. As
long as the early separation is not voluntary unemployment is a matter
of registering and a meeting or two. Then one has to apply for the
occasional job. Worst case is one finds one.

I also know folks in their 50's who were pushed out and are looking as
well as taking temp jobs just to keep their hand in. All of them have
a working spouse who can support them quite well. They just feel like
they should be working. Some folks do not handle off time well, some
do. Some of those folks have gone the "any job" route as school bus
drivers or home health aides.

If you want a bottom line I suspect it is that the folks you are
talking about do not exist in great numbers. If one really wants to
work there are high turnover jobs always looking for help.

[Hank]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 7:31:02 AM UTC-4, nothermark wrote:

> Not true. There were probably a significant number of folks who were
>
> doing the 20 and out in public safety jobs but that number was
>
> increased very significantly in the late 70's/early 80's. The 401K
>
> plan was changed then to make it into a retirement plane. Companies
>
> forced their workers into the plans to get out from under pension
>
> obligations. That was when a lot more folks started doing the "if I
>
> defer 20% of my income tax free" calculations. If one was 30 then the
>
> numbers looked good for retirement before 65 in 2015. Those folks had
>
> a good run with their money. That is who we are talking about now as
>
> they are in the right age group. They also could usually look forward
>
> to around 20-30 good years before they were caught in the outsourcing.
>
>

Also adding to the number of unemployed are the fact more kids in the "working age group" are going to some sort of schooling/training rather than get a job.

No matter how you slice it, Bruces figures are nothing more than useless trash.

Hank

[Owen McKenzie]

On 10/15/2012 9:54 AM, nothermark wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:00:22 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>>>>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009 - 133,561,000
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000

> If you want a bottom line I suspect it is that the folks you are
> talking about do not exist in great numbers. If one really wants to
> work there are high turnover jobs always looking for help.
>
>

I know this is probably futile, but I have a couple of questions for mark.

Do you dispute the numbers above?
If you do, on what basis do you dispute them?

If you don't dispute them, what do you think those 8,000,000+ people are
doing?
I know you can't come up with exact numbers, but what kinds of
activities and sources of income do you think are in play here?
Things like, xxx,xxx retired early & are living on their 401k, xxx,xxx
are spouses of others who are working, etc.

Try to get close as close to 8,000,000 as you can. I'd be interested in
seeing your analysis of the situation rather than you just picking apart
the analysis of others.

--

Owen McKenzie
Posting from Pigeon Forge, TN

We were promised hope and change.
We got hype and blame.

[Bruce S]

On 10/15/2012 3:40 AM, Hank wrote:
> On Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:37:54 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
>> On 10/14/2012 1:29 PM, Hank wrote:
>>
>>> When I retired in 1996 at the age of 48, O wasn't in office, so don't blame him. I am only 64, so according to you, I am considered one of the unemployed because I don't have a job? I know MANY police and FF's who retired at 48. I believe your FACTS are skewed to the limit and doesn't show the TRUE figures.
>
>>> A friend got laid off a couple years ago, ran out of unemployment. He is 57. He has no plans to go back to work because his house is paid for, his wife works, they have no bills. According to your figures, he is still counted as unemployed.
>>
>>> I probably PERSONALLY know hundreds like me and my friend.
>>
>>> Hank <~~~~ still part of the unemployed and lovin it!:-)
>>
>> So, here is the same question I asked mark - see if you can provide a
>> believable answer.
>>
>> Since 0bama took office almost 8 million people have entered the
>> workforce age group. Historically 2/3rds of those people would have
>> been seeking jobs (about 5 million people). However, today there are 61
>> thousand FEWER people employed than there were 4 years ago.
>>
>> We can assume that some people have always retired early, that some
>> people have always chosen to be housewives and househusbands, and that
>> some people have always chosen to be vagrants. We can assume those
>> things because historically only 2/3rds of the working age group is
>> actually working or seeking work.
>>
>> So, what has changed that has caused a number of people equal to 100% of
>> new workforce people to drop out of the work force? (Rather than the
>> half from our parents generation, or the 1/3rd from our generation.)
>>
>> Why, suddenly, in the last four years, and never before in history, are
>> all those people making the choice to leave the work force.
>>

>> Bruce
>
> Just so I understand you correctly...
>
> Are you saying that ONLY because of Obama, there are 8 million MORE people unemployed in the workforce age? If so, how many were unemployed in the work force age BEFORE Obama took office? How much has the workforce age grown in the last 4 years due to population increase?
>
> You seem to think that there were no employment ( or economy ) problems before Obama took office.
>
> Hank

Clearly I gave you to much credit for understanding the issue. I'll try
again.

Since 0bama took office almost 8 million more people have reached
"working age" - that is 8 million MORE people are now between the ages
of 16 and 65 than were in that age group 4 years ago. (Is that fact
simple enough for you to figure out?)

Also since 0bama took office (according to the government) there are 61
thousand fewer people holding jobs today than had jobs four years ago.

Those two items are simple facts, produced by the government and not in
dispute by anyone.

So, the question is, if there are 8 million more people available, and
61 thousand less people actually looking for work, how is it possible
for the unemployment rate (as computed by the government) to be exactly
the same? Simple math says it can't be the same, but they say it is.

This discussion has never been about laying blame - I (personally)
believe that it is 0bama's fault that those people do not have jobs, but
that is not what we were talking about. We were talking about the
legitimacy of the claim that the rate of unemployment is the same, even
though there are 8 million more people who should be counted.

First give me a rational explanation for how the population went up by 8
million, and the jobs went down by 61 thousand, but the unemployment
rate remained the same, then we can discuss blame and how to fix the
problem.

[Bruce S]

I saw a cartoon this morning that perfectly sums up the job situation.
A defeated looking man says. "I've been out of work for 24 months and
given up all hope." 0bama smiles at him and says, "CONGRATS!!!
According to the Labor Department you are no longer unemployed."

That is the real reason the unemployment percentage is down, we have
millions of people the government simply quit counting because those
people have given up looking. Those millions of people still want jobs
and still don't have jobs, but they gave up, and are no longer counted -
common sense says they SHOULD still be counted.

[Bruce S]

So, Hank, if you knew a guy who was laid off last year, and he looked
for work for a long time, but recently said to you, "I give up, there is
no work available, I'm just going to sit at home, watch television and
live on food stamps."

Is that guy unemployed?????
How should he be counted when doing stats?

[nothermark]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:44:48 -0400, Owen McKenzie
<owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/15/2012 9:54 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:00:22 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>>>>>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009 - 133,561,000
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000
>
>> If you want a bottom line I suspect it is that the folks you are
>> talking about do not exist in great numbers. If one really wants to
>> work there are high turnover jobs always looking for help.
>>
>>
>I know this is probably futile, but I have a couple of questions for mark.
>
>Do you dispute the numbers above?
>If you do, on what basis do you dispute them?

Yes. I do not see where the 61,000 difference = 8,000,000. Somebody
left out something.

If I assume Bruce is correct about the 8 million:

I do not dispute the change in numbers of folks in the arbitrarily
defined group.

I do not dispute the number of folks reporting themselves out of work
and looking.

I do dispute the age group as no longer relevant as retirement for
full social Security is now 66 and headed for 67 so 65 is meaningless.

I dispute that the folks who are not working and not reporting
themselves as unemployed will pop out of the woodwork if the job
market opens up. That is essentially for two reasons. More folks are
in school longer on the bottom and more folks can retire early on the
top.

Student loans have cut into the number of folks that have to work
their way through school on the bottom. Granted many work for pocket
money or book money but they are not "employed" as that is defined.

Aside from the folks that only have a 20-30 year commitment to draw
retirement there are a lot of folks who were forced into early
retirement but have a bridge program for medical and their Social
Security equivalent that, combined with their 401K proceeds, puts them
in a reasonably comfortable place so they do not need to work. Even
without the bridge payments many folks who formerly had to work to 65
to get their pension do not have that mandate under a 401K system. Get
let go or offered at deal at 63 and there is no need to go back to
work. Pension is not gone, just a bit smaller. With the number of
working spouse/partner households there does not even need to be a
huge change in lifestyle.

The leading edge of the baby boom also increased the number of
retiree's compared to new workers as the folks exiting the workforce
are a larger number than a few years back. Bruce is comparing the
depression era/WWII baby bust with the post WWII baby boom
populations.

>
>If you don't dispute them, what do you think those 8,000,000+ people are
>doing?

A variety of things. I have no idea what the breakdown is on one
hand. I know there are a lot of folks not working and not worrying
about it. The number of teachers and public service workers increased
with the boomers, those folks retire early. The 401K retirement shift
removed the "work to 65 to get a pension" issue. All the business
realignments pushed a lot of working folks around so that there is no
longer a "normal" work pattern so I do not expect a "normal"
retirement pattern.

>I know you can't come up with exact numbers, but what kinds of
>activities and sources of income do you think are in play here?

I could live on the Social Security Check if I had to. I assume I
have a lot of fellow workers who worked a lot of OT and/or had a good
job for many years when we were younger so that pushed up our payments
to more than we would get if it was based on, say, the last 5 years. I
also have some other money coming in. But I was part of the group of
folks who were job shifted every 10 years or so. There are a lot of
us because the technology field turned into a high turnover operation.

OTOH L has 30 years or so at her job, more SS than I do because she is
working two more years, and a 401K that will make her nephew happy at
some future point. In the meantime it will make the difference
between getting by and comfortable for us. I know a lot of folks in
both situations. All of us can get by. Some better than others.

>Things like, xxx,xxx retired early & are living on their 401k, xxx,xxx
>are spouses of others who are working, etc.

I have no idea what the real numbers are. If anyone is aggregating
them I have not found it. If I go by a sample of all the folks in our
social circle we are the only two that worked past 65. Most of the
younger (50's) folks we know are also looking at locking in money so
they do not need to work to 65. Most are in some kind of relationship
where if one partner goes they are fine and if both retire they will
be OK. The job market has been too unstable not to plan that way.

>
>Try to get close as close to 8,000,000 as you can. I'd be interested in
>seeing your analysis of the situation rather than you just picking apart
>the analysis of others.

I cannot analyze what I cannot get numbers for. Strictly on the basis
of using my social circle as a statistical sample working to 65 is an
aberration. Most quit earlier. A few quite later. I don't think any
retired at 65.

My point is that there is no mysterious labor force hiding in the
bushes due to Obama's policies. There is no big reason for that but
there are a host of small reasons that aggregate into a large trend.
That we can see some evidence of and readily hypothesize about.

The problem I see is that numbers given do not tell much of the story.
Somebody pulled the raw totals out and is trying to draw one
conclusion as the only possible one. IF there are a host of other
probably answers then that conclusion cannot be automatically assumed
to be correct. If anybody can pull out better numbers it would be
interesting. I would not be surprised to find out the data exists but
not in the public domain.

[nothermark]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:16:08 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I will give you another chunk of those folks:

Between 2000 and 2010, the number of 18- to 24-year-olds increased
from 27.3 million to 30.7 million, an increase of 12 percent, and the
percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college rose from 35
percent in 2000 to 41 percent in 2010. In addition to enrollment in
accredited 2-year colleges, 4-year colleges, and universities, about
539,000 students attended non-degree-granting, Title IV eligible,
postsecondary institutions in fall 2009.

From:
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

It looks like a significant number are in school.

[Owen McKenzie]

On 10/15/2012 2:53 PM, nothermark wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:44:48 -0400, Owen McKenzie
> <owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2012 9:54 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:00:22 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>>>>>>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009 - 133,561,000
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000
>>
>>> If you want a bottom line I suspect it is that the folks you are
>>> talking about do not exist in great numbers. If one really wants to
>>> work there are high turnover jobs always looking for help.
>>>
>>>
>> I know this is probably futile, but I have a couple of questions for mark.
>>
>> Do you dispute the numbers above?
>> If you do, on what basis do you dispute them?
>
>
> Yes. I do not see where the 61,000 difference = 8,000,000. Somebody
> left out something.

Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000 is
from the Bureau if Labor Statistics. Add the 61,000 decrease in total
employment and you get the 8 million. Clear?

>
> If I assume Bruce is correct about the 8 million:
>
> I do not dispute the change in numbers of folks in the arbitrarily
> defined group.
>
> I do not dispute the number of folks reporting themselves out of work
> and looking.
>
> I do dispute the age group as no longer relevant as retirement for
> full social Security is now 66 and headed for 67 so 65 is meaningless.

So, if the retirement is higher than 65, that would indicate the 8
million number is to low, right?

>
> I dispute that the folks who are not working and not reporting
> themselves as unemployed will pop out of the woodwork if the job
> market opens up. That is essentially for two reasons. More folks are
> in school longer on the bottom and more folks can retire early on the
> top.

No where in my question is anything about anyone "popping out of the
woodwork."

SS doesn't enter into it, as these people are all below the age to get
benefits.

Do you think this is a recent, within the last 4 years, thing, or has it
been that way for some time? I know I retired at 63 10 years ago, so it
isn't that new, but if you think it is, can you estimate some numbers?

>
> My point is that there is no mysterious labor force hiding in the
> bushes due to Obama's policies. There is no big reason for that but
> there are a host of small reasons that aggregate into a large trend.
> That we can see some evidence of and readily hypothesize about.

OK, hypothesize using estimated numbers for as many of the host of small
reasons as you can think of. 8 million is the target.

>
> The problem I see is that numbers given do not tell much of the story.
> Somebody pulled the raw totals out and is trying to draw one
> conclusion as the only possible one. IF there are a host of other
> probably answers then that conclusion cannot be automatically assumed
> to be correct. If anybody can pull out better numbers it would be
> interesting. I would not be surprised to find out the data exists but
> not in the public domain.
>

I'm not asking about a mysterious labor force. I said at the beginning
that this was probably futile and you've proved it by not coming up with
any meaningful ideas as to the numbers in the categories you've
mentioned. Even wild guesses.

[Hank]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:15:57 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:


> Since 0bama took office almost 8 million more people have reached
>
> "working age" - that is 8 million MORE people are now between the ages
>
> of 16 and 65 than were in that age group 4 years ago. (Is that fact
>
> simple enough for you to figure out?)
>
>
>
> Also since 0bama took office (according to the government) there are 61
>
> thousand fewer people holding jobs today than had jobs four years ago.
>
>
>
> Those two items are simple facts, produced by the government and not in
>
> dispute by anyone.
>
>
>
> So, the question is, if there are 8 million more people available, and
>
> 61 thousand less people actually looking for work, how is it possible
>
> for the unemployment rate (as computed by the government) to be exactly
>
> the same? Simple math says it can't be the same, but they say it is.
>
>
>
> This discussion has never been about laying blame - I (personally)
>
> believe that it is 0bama's fault that those people do not have jobs, but
>
> that is not what we were talking about. We were talking about the
>
> legitimacy of the claim that the rate of unemployment is the same, even
>
> though there are 8 million more people who should be counted.
>
>
>
> First give me a rational explanation for how the population went up by 8
>
> million, and the jobs went down by 61 thousand, but the unemployment
>
> rate remained the same, then we can discuss blame and how to fix the
>
> problem.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

If the working age people have increased by 8 million (by no fault of anybody), there should be 8 million unemployed, plus the unemployed before O took office, in a stagnant employment time. So, even with that, your numbers are flawed.

Hank

[Hank]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:29:58 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

> So, Hank, if you knew a guy who was laid off last year, and he looked
>
> for work for a long time, but recently said to you, "I give up, there is
>
> no work available, I'm just going to sit at home, watch television and
>
> live on food stamps."
>
>
>
> Is that guy unemployed?????
>
> How should he be counted when doing stats?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

Personally, I feel if the guy decided not to work, he shouldn't be counted as unemployed. A person can count him in/out, depends on what you want your stats to show. The criteria used to gather info can vary greatly.

How many "studies" have you seen? How many of them was later found to be wrong?

Hank

[bill horne]

Hank wrote:
> On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:29:58 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
>
>> So, Hank, if you knew a guy who was laid off last year, and he
>> looked
>>
>> for work for a long time, but recently said to you, "I give up,
>> there is
>>
>> no work available, I'm just going to sit at home, watch
>> television and
>>
>> live on food stamps."
>>
>>
>>
>> Is that guy unemployed?????
>>
>> How should he be counted when doing stats?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Bruce
>
> Personally, I feel if the guy decided not to work, he shouldn't be
> counted as unemployed.

In the gummit unemployment number you see on TV, he's not.

> A person can count him in/out, depends on
> what you want your stats to show.

But not in the official gummit number you see on TV. In that one, he's
out.

> The criteria used to gather info
> can vary greatly.

But not in the gummit number you see on TV.

> How many "studies" have you seen? How many of them was later found
> to be wrong?
>
> Hank

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

[Bruce S]

On 10/15/2012 11:53 AM, nothermark wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:44:48 -0400, Owen McKenzie
> <owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2012 9:54 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:00:22 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>>>>>>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009 - 133,561,000
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000
>>
>>> If you want a bottom line I suspect it is that the folks you are
>>> talking about do not exist in great numbers. If one really wants to
>>> work there are high turnover jobs always looking for help.
>>>
>>>
>> I know this is probably futile, but I have a couple of questions for mark.
>>
>> Do you dispute the numbers above?
>> If you do, on what basis do you dispute them?
>
>
> Yes. I do not see where the 61,000 difference = 8,000,000. Somebody
> left out something.

Are you really so dense you can't follow the conversation. The almost 8
million population growth figure comes from the government it is the
figure included above (7,865,000) rounded up. Surely you could have
figured that out for yourself.

The 61,000 also comes from the numbers above:

Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
Total employment Jan. 2009 - 133,561,000

Subtract 133,500,000 from 133,561,000 and you discover that there are
61,000 fewer people working today than there were when 0bama took
office. If you can read English you should have figured that out for
yourself.

So, the question, the thing you can't seem to answer is: Since the
population went up by 8 million people, how do you explain the fact that
61,000 fewer people are working today - especially since the official
unemployment figure (7.8%) remains the same. (Do you see the math
problem with the government conclusion?)

And it is your contention that, suddenly, starting in 2009, after almost
20 years of ever increasing numbers of people seeking employment, they
suddenly not only stopped working, but stopped even looking for work?
Unlikely.

[Bruce S]

So, you have accounted for about 1.7 million of the 3.7 million people
who are now in that 18 - 24 age group. That leaves 2 million who would
normally be seeking employment and are now unaccounted for. In your
opinion, did ANY of those people seek employment?

[Bruce S]

Not my numbers, the government's numbers - from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.

The government says that there are 61,000 less people working today than

there were 4 years ago.

The government says there are 8 million more people available today than

there were 4 years ago.

My complaint (and my problem with the government's numbers) is that the
government claims that unemployment is exactly the same 7.8% today that
it was 4 years ago.

Common sense, and simple math, says that 7.8% figure is a lie - you
can't have more people, less jobs, and the same unemployment percentage.
Grade school math proves that is impossible.

(As an aside, that 8 million population increase does not mean all 8
million of them went out looking for jobs. Some became house
wives/husbands, some of them are full time students, some of them were
offset by people who retired, some of them are just bums and will never
work. In recent years about 2/3rds of that population increase were
people looking for jobs. In our parents age group, it was about half.
So, if we assume that (for some unknown reasons) it was only half then
the increase in actual unemployment would only have been about 4 million.)

[nothermark]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:16:34 -0400, Owen McKenzie

I don't do wild guess's. I usually fish for statistics and put them
together. In this case I cannot find anything to the effect that
6,726.195 folks betwenn 60and 65 stopped working to be primary care
givers for their parents. That was the point.

FWIW, between my last comment and this one a fellow I used to work
with stopped by. 903 days until he retires at 62. He really is
tired of dealing with the Bruce style management that took over a
couple of years ago, has the money, and has a lot of other ways to
spend his time. His wife is older and has already retired.

If you want a guess the 8 million are happily into early retirement
and enjoying the good life. The workplace has ceased to be fun for
them so they are taking advantage of their ability to opt out.

[Bruce S]

On 10/15/2012 2:21 PM, Hank wrote:
> On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:29:58 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
>
>> So, Hank, if you knew a guy who was laid off last year, and he looked
>>
>> for work for a long time, but recently said to you, "I give up, there is
>>
>> no work available, I'm just going to sit at home, watch television and
>>
>> live on food stamps."
>>
>>
>>
>> Is that guy unemployed?????
>>
>> How should he be counted when doing stats?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Bruce
>
> Personally, I feel if the guy decided not to work, he shouldn't be counted as unemployed.

What if the only reason he decided not to work was because he was unable
to find a job and believed that he would never be able to find a job?

[Frank Howell]

For all eternity? :-) But it really does depend on what the total number of
students were who enrolled in college in 2000 to gauge how much of an impact
a 41% increase really is in 2010. If say there were 2 million enrolled
students then a 41% increase would result in a total 2.8 million students
which is not much, but if the starting total was 25 million then resulting
figures would be significant. So without precise numbers, it's not relevant,
at least in my opinion. Any idea how many in 2000?

--
Frank Howell

[Bruce S]

On 10/15/2012 3:09 PM, nothermark wrote:

>> >I'm not asking about a mysterious labor force. I said at the beginning
>> >that this was probably futile and you've proved it by not coming up with
>> >any meaningful ideas as to the numbers in the categories you've
>> >mentioned. Even wild guesses.
>
> I don't do wild guess's. I usually fish for statistics and put them
> together. In this case I cannot find anything to the effect that
> 6,726.195 folks betwenn 60and 65 stopped working to be primary care
> givers for their parents. That was the point.
>
> FWIW, between my last comment and this one a fellow I used to work
> with stopped by. 903 days until he retires at 62. He really is
> tired of dealing with the Bruce style management that took over a
> couple of years ago, has the money, and has a lot of other ways to
> spend his time. His wife is older and has already retired.
>
> If you want a guess the 8 million are happily into early retirement
> and enjoying the good life. The workplace has ceased to be fun for
> them so they are taking advantage of their ability to opt out.

I responded to this post once, but can't find my response anymore, so,
I'll try again (and correct the url in the process).

Just a little bit of research finds that the labor participation rate
for people over age 55 has actually gone up, not down as you posited.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/Forefront/2011/fall/ff_2011_fall_06.cfm

"While the young and middle-aged have been hopping out of the labor
pool, older Americans have been hopping in. The participation rate of
people 55 and up has been increasing since the mid-1990s (although it
has pretty much flattened out since 2007). Some attribute this change to
seniors’ improving health, which allows them to continue working later
into life. Others maintain that the financial crisis may have adversely
affected retirement accounts, causing older workers to delay retirement
in order to rebuild their savings."

[nothermark]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:48:22 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 10/15/2012 11:53 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:44:48 -0400, Owen McKenzie
>> <owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/15/2012 9:54 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:00:22 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>>>>>>>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009 - 133,561,000
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000
>>>
>>>> If you want a bottom line I suspect it is that the folks you are
>>>> talking about do not exist in great numbers. If one really wants to
>>>> work there are high turnover jobs always looking for help.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I know this is probably futile, but I have a couple of questions for mark.
>>>
>>> Do you dispute the numbers above?
>>> If you do, on what basis do you dispute them?
>>
>>
>> Yes. I do not see where the 61,000 difference = 8,000,000. Somebody
>> left out something.
>
>Are you really so dense you can't follow the conversation. The almost 8
>million population growth figure comes from the government it is the
>figure included above (7,865,000) rounded up. Surely you could have
>figured that out for yourself.

no, it was just that it was no longer all there.

>
>The 61,000 also comes from the numbers above:
>Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>Total employment Jan. 2009 - 133,561,000
>
>Subtract 133,500,000 from 133,561,000 and you discover that there are
>61,000 fewer people working today than there were when 0bama took
>office. If you can read English you should have figured that out for
>yourself.

I did

>
>So, the question, the thing you can't seem to answer is: Since the
>population went up by 8 million people, how do you explain the fact that
>61,000 fewer people are working today - especially since the official
>unemployment figure (7.8%) remains the same. (Do you see the math
>problem with the government conclusion?)

There is * no* correlation between the numbers. That is my point.


>
>snip<

>
>And it is your contention that, suddenly, starting in 2009, after almost
>20 years of ever increasing numbers of people seeking employment, they
>suddenly not only stopped working, but stopped even looking for work?
>Unlikely.

I do not think it was sudden. Plot the diffence every year between,
say, 2000 and 2011 and you will have a clue.

I found a curve on college admissions that show tha number is growing
every year by significant amounts. I have not found a curve for
retirements but that is harder to develop. Both trends seem to
indicate a smaller and older workforce as the boomers retire. There
is a lot of mention of that but, again, no hard data.

The bottom line is that you have an anamoly you are trying to force in
to one mold - displaced starving workers - while I have found a lot of
real alternative ways to make the number happen. Between the folks
caught up in owing big bucks to Edubusiness and the one's who opted
out of working for various reasons before 65 I think we can account
for your 8 million. I think it is a trend that has been developing
for a while as the result of the push toward higher education, the
mean spititedness growing in the work place as the result of budget
cutting and the ability of folks to opt out and start drawing on their
401K instead of waiting until they reach 65 so they can draw a
pension.

[nothermark]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:54:35 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

Probably. I am not saying we do not have an unempolyment problem. 8%
unemployment is a problem. What I am saying on that end is that there
probably is not a hidden cache of folks sitting home living off their
parents waiting for the job market to break. The available folks are
being counted. Many are probably working part time or multiple part
time jobs. There is a lot more of that around than when we were kids
as part timers do not get benefits so business's are using 2 part time
instead of 1 full time worker.

[Bruce S]

I copied it from THIS post - about 15 lines up. Surely you could have
found it without my help.

>> The 61,000 also comes from the numbers above:
>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>> Total employment Jan. 2009 - 133,561,000
>>
>> Subtract 133,500,000 from 133,561,000 and you discover that there are
>> 61,000 fewer people working today than there were when 0bama took
>> office. If you can read English you should have figured that out for
>> yourself.
>
> I did
>
>
>>
>> So, the question, the thing you can't seem to answer is: Since the
>> population went up by 8 million people, how do you explain the fact that
>> 61,000 fewer people are working today - especially since the official
>> unemployment figure (7.8%) remains the same. (Do you see the math
>> problem with the government conclusion?)
>
>
> There is * no* correlation between the numbers. That is my point.

You actually believe that the 8 million people who joined the population
in the last four years don't follow ANY of the statistical normal trends
for the last 50 years? Come on, nobody is stupid enough to believe that.

>> And it is your contention that, suddenly, starting in 2009, after almost
>> 20 years of ever increasing numbers of people seeking employment, they
>> suddenly not only stopped working, but stopped even looking for work?
>> Unlikely.
>
> I do not think it was sudden. Plot the diffence every year between,
> say, 2000 and 2011 and you will have a clue.

January 2000 Labor Force Participation Rate = 67.2
January 2009 Labor Force Participation Rate = 65.7

So, in those 9 years we see a reduction of 1.5%, most of it between 2000
and August 2003 during the recession. It stayed at 66.0 and 66.1 until
November 2008 when 0bama was elected. In fact, November 2008 was the
first time it dropped below 60.0.

Now:
January 2009 Labor Force Participation Rate = 65.7
September 2012 Labor Force Participation Rate = 63.6

And during 0bama's term we see a reduction of 2.1% (or 2.4% is you start
counting at his election.)

I don't know about you, but to me that seems like a pretty sharp drop.

> I found a curve on college admissions that show tha number is growing
> every year by significant amounts. I have not found a curve for
> retirements but that is harder to develop. Both trends seem to
> indicate a smaller and older workforce as the boomers retire. There
> is a lot of mention of that but, again, no hard data.

I already gave you this link once, but you might not have seen it yet.
Your have assertion has been that the drop in participation rate is
because older folks are retiring early, that is not the case:

http://www.clevelandfed.org/Forefront/2011/fall/ff_2011_fall_06.cfm

"While the young and middle-aged have been hopping out of the labor
pool, older Americans have been hopping in. The participation rate of
people 55 and up has been increasing since the mid-1990s (although it
has pretty much flattened out since 2007)."

> The bottom line is that you have an anamoly you are trying to force in
> to one mold - displaced starving workers - while I have found a lot of
> real alternative ways to make the number happen. Between the folks
> caught up in owing big bucks to Edubusiness and the one's who opted
> out of working for various reasons before 65 I think we can account
> for your 8 million. I think it is a trend that has been developing
> for a while as the result of the push toward higher education, the
> mean spititedness growing in the work place as the result of budget
> cutting and the ability of folks to opt out and start drawing on their
> 401K instead of waiting until they reach 65 so they can draw a
> pension.

Turns out every assumption you make is wrong (no surprise there). Try a
little reading:

From Forbes Magazine:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/

From the Washington Post Newspaper:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-americas-labor-force-dropouts-ever-come-back/2012/05/15/gIQA3IFJRU_blog.html

From the New York Times: (This one is an attempt to defend 0bama.)
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/fact-check-an-11-percent-unemployment-rate/

And from the US Government:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

You'll notice I tried to find as many left wing sources as possible so
you couldn't use that as an excuse for not reading them.

[Bruce S]

The government has divided the potential labor pool into several
categories. The first is the "Participating Workers", which is
subdivided into "Employed" and "Unemployed." Employed is further
subdivided to include "Under Employed."

"Under Employed" - Persons employed part time for economic reasons are
those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to
settle for a part-time schedule. These people are counted as employed
for the overall employed/unemployed stat.

Then we have "Not Participating" Which is everyone who is neither
employed nor looking for work. Some of the sub-groups in this group are
housewives, disabled, students (if they don't have any type of job),
retired, vagrants and the like. (i.e. people who don't want a job.)

"Not participating" is further divided to include the following:

"Marginally attached Workers" - those who currently are neither working
nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a
job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months.

"Discouraged Workers" - a subset of the marginally attached, have given
a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. (Those
reasons include no jobs available, no jobs in their field, no jobs they
qualify for, and no jobs that pay enough.)

It is my opinion that all those Marginal and Discouraged workers who
claim they would be working if they could find a job should be counted
as Unemployed - because (according to them) the only reason they are not
working is because there is nothing available.

Right now all those marginal, discouraged, and under-employed workers
bring the total unemployed to 14.7% (so a total of 7% marginal,
discouraged and under employed) - do you really believe that none of
those people will attempt to re-enter the workforce if the economy
improves? That is an additional 12 million (approximately) people who
could re-enter the workforce.

Again, my only point in starting this discussion was that if the only
reason the unemployment number is going down is because you stop
counting people who want to work, but cant find any work (Marginal and
Discouraged workers) then whatever answer you end up with is a fraud.

[Bruce S]

On 10/15/2012 6:03 PM, nothermark wrote:

> Many are probably working part time or multiple part
> time jobs. There is a lot more of that around than when we were kids
> as part timers do not get benefits so business's are using 2 part time
> instead of 1 full time worker.

By the way, every one of those part time workers is counted as employed.
Anyone who works for pay - as little as one hour a week - is counted
as employed. That is one of the reasons unemployment went down this
month - they found several thousand additional part time workers.

[Hank]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 6:07:14 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>
> Not my numbers, the government's numbers - from the Bureau of Labor
>
> Statistics.
>
>
>
> The government says that there are 61,000 less people working today than
>
> there were 4 years ago.
>
> The government says there are 8 million more people available today than
>
> there were 4 years ago.
>
>
>
> My complaint (and my problem with the government's numbers) is that the
>
> government claims that unemployment is exactly the same 7.8% today that
>
> it was 4 years ago.
>
>
>
> Common sense, and simple math, says that 7.8% figure is a lie - you
>
> can't have more people, less jobs, and the same unemployment percentage.
>
> Grade school math proves that is impossible.
>
>
>
> (As an aside, that 8 million population increase does not mean all 8
>
> million of them went out looking for jobs. Some became house
>
> wives/husbands, some of them are full time students, some of them were
>
> offset by people who retired, some of them are just bums and will never
>
> work. In recent years about 2/3rds of that population increase were
>
> people looking for jobs. In our parents age group, it was about half.
>
> So, if we assume that (for some unknown reasons) it was only half then
>
> the increase in actual unemployment would only have been about 4 million.)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

It appears we agree that the Government numbers are hogwash, just like every others so-called figures.

If I remember correctly, the Government was broadcasting a unemployment rate of over 9%-10% four years ago, not the 7.8% you claim.

Hank

[nothermark]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:02:31 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

The numbers are there. There is no correlation between the numbers.
There was a 61,,000 change for and 8,000,000 change. Two data points
on separate curves do not make a trend. Plot something like workers
entering the workforce over a significant number of years and total
employment over the same period and you can look for a correlation
between the trends.

>
>
>>> The 61,000 also comes from the numbers above:
>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>>> Total employment Jan. 2009 - 133,561,000
>>>
>>> Subtract 133,500,000 from 133,561,000 and you discover that there are
>>> 61,000 fewer people working today than there were when 0bama took
>>> office. If you can read English you should have figured that out for
>>> yourself.
>>
>> I did
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So, the question, the thing you can't seem to answer is: Since the
>>> population went up by 8 million people, how do you explain the fact that
>>> 61,000 fewer people are working today - especially since the official
>>> unemployment figure (7.8%) remains the same. (Do you see the math
>>> problem with the government conclusion?)
>>
>>
>> There is * no* correlation between the numbers. That is my point.
>
>You actually believe that the 8 million people who joined the population
>in the last four years don't follow ANY of the statistical normal trends
>for the last 50 years? Come on, nobody is stupid enough to believe that.

I believe you do not show any trends. All you have is two data points
on different curves. Provide the trend data and maybe you can find
something interesting.

I also believe you are trying to fit a lumpy data set to a linear
change. As I recall there is peak in folks at each end of the
population. If you changed your data set to folks between 21 and 65.
As it stands I think there is a bulge in the 16- 21 age group so a lot
of the folks you are talking about would not be expected to be
working. At the same time you have an unusually large number of folks
exiting the work force as they retire over a range of ages instead of
the old cliff at 65. All those factors need to be in the data set to
mean anything.

BTW, I'm looking for the 50 year trends that you want me to comment
on. You have not provided them and I can not find them. That seems
to put the onus on you to provide a source with data to show what the
50 year trends are.

What I did find was a trend in an increased number of folks entering
post secondary education that accounted for around 3 of the 8 million
you spoke of.

I also found a lot of information that boils down to the boomers are
not following the trends of their parents in retirement. Add that
there was also an explanation of two items that will provide a trend
after the data is plotted in 10-20 years. The age of retirement is
more flexible due to 401K plans, the fixed SS min at 62 and the rising
SS "full" retirement at 66 going to 67. The last bit of information
does say that previous trends are expected to change with the boomers.

>
>
>>> And it is your contention that, suddenly, starting in 2009, after almost
>>> 20 years of ever increasing numbers of people seeking employment, they
>>> suddenly not only stopped working, but stopped even looking for work?
>>> Unlikely.
>>
>> I do not think it was sudden. Plot the diffence every year between,
>> say, 2000 and 2011 and you will have a clue.
>
>January 2000 Labor Force Participation Rate = 67.2
>January 2009 Labor Force Participation Rate = 65.7
>
>So, in those 9 years we see a reduction of 1.5%, most of it between 2000
>and August 2003 during the recession. It stayed at 66.0 and 66.1 until
>November 2008 when 0bama was elected. In fact, November 2008 was the
>first time it dropped below 60.0.

So you maintain that a bunch of folks looked at the election results
and laid off a large number of workers or went out of business?

(I would not make that claim. It is too close to the election for any
rational person to see what direction changes, if any, were likely to
take place. I would easily buy that there was a problem like the
housing collapse that developed under the previous administration and
happened at that time.)

>
>Now:
>January 2009 Labor Force Participation Rate = 65.7
>September 2012 Labor Force Participation Rate = 63.6
>
>And during 0bama's term we see a reduction of 2.1% (or 2.4% is you start
>counting at his election.)
>
>I don't know about you, but to me that seems like a pretty sharp drop.

2% is not a sharp drop. If may be within the margin of error of the
data collection process. 10% might be a sharp drop. There may be
some definition for that I am not familiar with but 2% is hardly ever
a big deal.

>
>> I found a curve on college admissions that show tha number is growing
>> every year by significant amounts. I have not found a curve for
>> retirements but that is harder to develop. Both trends seem to
>> indicate a smaller and older workforce as the boomers retire. There
>> is a lot of mention of that but, again, no hard data.
>
>I already gave you this link once, but you might not have seen it yet.
>Your have assertion has been that the drop in participation rate is
>because older folks are retiring early, that is not the case:
>
>http://www.clevelandfed.org/Forefront/2011/fall/ff_2011_fall_06.cfm
>
>"While the young and middle-aged have been hopping out of the labor
>pool, older Americans have been hopping in. The participation rate of
>people 55 and up has been increasing since the mid-1990s (although it
>has pretty much flattened out since 2007)."

As your man says, older workers are flat as a percentage but that we
also know the raw number of workers changed significantly with the
boomers following the WWII bust.

What your report shows is that the problem is the younger workers are
not participating as fast as they used to. That, in turn, would raise
the question of why and who to blame for no longer having the entry
level jobs we used to have. IF you go down that road both parties are
solidly on the band wagon of eliminating low pay/low skill jobs by
exporting them to cheap foreign labor markets. No surprises there for
me. To compete evenly there we would have to price our labor at a
couple of hundred a month. Hardly where any rational person would
want to go as we would still need to subsidize those folks to fit in
our society.

>
>> The bottom line is that you have an anamoly you are trying to force in
>> to one mold - displaced starving workers - while I have found a lot of
>> real alternative ways to make the number happen. Between the folks
>> caught up in owing big bucks to Edubusiness and the one's who opted
>> out of working for various reasons before 65 I think we can account
>> for your 8 million. I think it is a trend that has been developing
>> for a while as the result of the push toward higher education, the
>> mean spititedness growing in the work place as the result of budget
>> cutting and the ability of folks to opt out and start drawing on their
>> 401K instead of waiting until they reach 65 so they can draw a
>> pension.
>
>Turns out every assumption you make is wrong (no surprise there). Try a
>little reading:

Not from the data you provided. Your article listed more women in the
work force as one issue. That trend has been going on since 1970 or
so. Run the numbers. More women with 40 years in the workforce are
still working as they have good jobs. OTOH a significant number of
early retirement folks is also indicated in the flat numbers since
2007. So we have a steady number of folks retiring and a steady
number we are aware of who cannot afford to retire.

>
> From Forbes Magazine:
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/

2% is not a big deal. If you look at the curve it was also declining
under W but sharpened a bit as the boomers started to hit 60 in 2006.
That would track nicely with folks taking early retirement.

>
> From the Washington Post Newspaper:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-americas-labor-force-dropouts-ever-come-back/2012/05/15/gIQA3IFJRU_blog.html

Again, niggling over 1-2% changes. Interesting trends though., It
looks like we should be looking into why so many more folks are
disabled as well as reflecting the number of older folks who go back
to school.

>
> From the New York Times: (This one is an attempt to defend 0bama.)
>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/fact-check-an-11-percent-unemployment-rate/

More or less a rehash of what every worker learns around the coffee
pot.

>
>And from the US Government:
>http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/
>
>You'll notice I tried to find as many left wing sources as possible so
>you couldn't use that as an excuse for not reading them.

The root data the rest drew on. No surprises.

I have no objection to reading "right wing" sources. The issue is
when you pull out a biased blog and complain when I poke holes in
their reasoning.

All this boils down to a 1-2% change. I used a range because one or
more authors split the reasons. It appears to be 3 main factors.
Young folks with no jobs, no surprise, middle aged folks back in
school, and seniors working or not. With 8% unemployment the 2%
decline in workers is not a surprise. In fact, nothing here is a
surprise and not much is a trend. As long as both parties support
outsourcing I expect the number to continue to decline until we crash
our economy. Little, if any, of this has anything to do with who is
in the Whitehouse. It does reflect a lot of what I have been saying
both in these threads and in ones on the economy. What it does not do
is support taking one point on each of two curves and trying to make
them a trend to prove anything.

[nothermark]

All Bruce is looking for is the change between
Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
Jan. 2009 - 133,561,000

The question he does not like the answer to is:

"So, the question, the thing you can't seem to answer is: Since the
population went up by 8 million people, how do you explain the fact
that
61,000 fewer people are working today - especially since the official
unemployment figure (7.8%) remains the same. (Do you see the math
problem with the government conclusion?)"

In that context the rising enrollment numbers is significant as it
accounts for a chunk of the 8 million folks he wants explained.


Looking at the link I can make a rough guess:

1980 - 11 million college enrollment
2000 - 16 "
2008 - 18 "
2011 - 21 "

It looks like 3 of his 8 million are in school.

That only leaves 5 million to have opted for early retirement.

What I have a problem finding is an age breakdown of the work force.
There are 10 year old ones and projections but hard data for recent
trends is not jumping out of a search. Given that the leading edge of
the boomers is not 66 and the distribution of workers by age is not
consistent but has a bulge in the boomers coupled with the ability to
retire before 65 to get one's pension I have no problem with the idea
that the other 5 million are early retired and not likely to go back
to work.

Another disincentive to go back is what one would be doing. Only a
few folks get called back to their old jobs. If new jobs appeared one
would be starting new yet again at lower pay and likely with a younger
boss and associated social issues. That can be a lot of hassle to put
up with when one is counting a few more years to retirement. That is
reinforced when one finds one's close friends developing significant
health problems assuming one is not the victim. We worked hard so
take some time to enjoy life while we can is reasonable and rational.

[Owen McKenzie]

On 10/16/2012 8:43 AM, nothermark wrote:
>
> All Bruce is looking for is the change between
> Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
> Jan. 2009 - 133,561,000
>
> The question he does not like the answer to is:
>
> "So, the question, the thing you can't seem to answer is: Since the
> population went up by 8 million people, how do you explain the fact
> that
> 61,000 fewer people are working today - especially since the official
> unemployment figure (7.8%) remains the same. (Do you see the math
> problem with the government conclusion?)"
>
>
> In that context the rising enrollment numbers is significant as it
> accounts for a chunk of the 8 million folks he wants explained.
>
>
> Looking at the link I can make a rough guess:
>
> 1980 - 11 million college enrollment
> 2000 - 16 "
> 2008 - 18 "
> 2011 - 21 "
>
> It looks like 3 of his 8 million are in school.
>
> That only leaves 5 million to have opted for early retirement.
>

You're joking, right? After all, Bruce posted this just yesterday:

Just a little bit of research finds that the labor participation rate
for people over age 55 has actually gone up, not down as you posited.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/Forefront/2011/fall/ff_2011_fall_06.cfm

"While the young and middle-aged have been hopping out of the labor
pool, older Americans have been hopping in. The participation rate of
people 55 and up has been increasing since the mid-1990s (although it

has pretty much flattened out since 2007). Some attribute this change to
seniors’ improving health, which allows them to continue working later
into life. Others maintain that the financial crisis may have adversely
affected retirement accounts, causing older workers to delay retirement
in order to rebuild their savings."

--