SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Oeconomicus who wrote (513180)12/19/2003 5:07:02 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) of 769670
 
Re: "I responded DIRECTLY to your claim that people are "disappearing" from the workforce...."

>>> Never said that. Said they were not counted in the 'headline' unemployment number --- which they are not.

The "participation rate" rose by .1%, the size of the civilian labor force rose by 484k, the numbers "not in labor force" fell by 244k, the number of employed persons rose by 589k and the number of people describing themselves as unemployed fell by 105k in the month of November. What don't you get?

>>> You are mixing and matching a bunch of statistics there.... Try looking just at the 'number of employed persons' (which you say 'rose by 589K' in November). Look to the appendix to see exactly how many jobs were ASSUMED (NOT reported!), and added to the totals (otherwise know as a 'fudge factor').

>>> Also, examine the government definition of the terms your quoted: "not in labor force", and "employed" (look to the hourly requirement).

As for changes in definitions, I find nothing to support your claim that any item in the November unemployment or payrolls report was impacted by a change of definitions.

>>> Didn't say the changes were made in November. Changes were made to the category definitions a year ago, I believe.

"Unemployed", BTW, includes anyone not working who has actually looked for work in the last 4 weeks"

>>> Right, that's what I said.

- otherwise, they are in the "not in labor force" number, along with anyone over 16 who has no intention of looking for work. The numbers of "discouraged" and "marginally attached" workers (looked for work in the last 12 months, but not the last 4 weeks; the former being a subset of the latter) in that number were 457k and 1.47 million, respectively. Both of these numbers dropped in November, BTW - the latter by 113k.

>>> Correct. Also look to the ASSUMED private sector creation of jobs --- which number is added to the "employed" number, even though these are NOT reported hires... just statistical assumptions. Also look at the definitions for 'full' and 'partial' employment... believe these measures have been loosened also.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext