February 03, 2012
– Comments (20) |
RELATED TICKERS: SPY
hmmm yup nothing to see here at all
You must be unaware of the context. Their claim today had to do with December 2011 through January 2012 figures. I'm well aware of the longer term trend, especially since 2001, which in fact makes a lot of the carping about Obama's particular record all the more silly.
Takedown? I must be "unaware" also. It's not just these guys- with their 'fake names and agenda'. More info here if you're interested.
"This is the largest absolute jump in ‘Persons Not In Labor Force’ on record…and biggest percentage jump in 30 years.."
Starfirenv: Your own link says:
"the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million..."
When the labor force increases, AND the unemployment rate drops in the same month, that's a good thing.
DMAF's link is correct: what happened in January is that there was a jump in the BLS estimate of total US population. As a result there was a corresponding increase in the work force, as well as in the # of people not in the work force.
The employment to population ratio was constant. Nothing bad happened in Dec-Jan.
Let's face it, zerohedge is a bunch of clowns. Even if you are a regular reader, and agree with their political views, you should be furious at them right now for intentionally misleading their readers.
I don't see how you can have a falling unemployment rate at the same time as you have a flat employment - population ratio.The BLS is still BS in my opinion.
Out of 1.7 million new working aged....only 500,000 found a job and 1.2 million did not or didn't look to get a job....And yet the unemployment rate falls and we are supposed to be celebrating over the fact that 1.2 million work aged now counted into the population of BLS's report are jobless?
"I don't see how you can have a falling unemployment rate at the same time as you have a flat employment - population ratio."
It happens because unemployment only counts the "work force", while the ratio counts the entire population. So, if the work force is changing, then the 2 stats don't always go in the same direction.
Usually they move inversely, but it's not a perfect relation.
"Out of 1.7 million new working aged....only 500,000 found a job and 1.2 million did not or didn't look to get a job....And yet the unemployment rate falls and we are supposed to be celebrating over the fact that 1.2 million work aged now counted into the population of BLS's report are jobless?"
But, lots of other people found jobs, which is good.
To sum up: yes we are adding jobs but not enough to compensate for the increase in the population.
Zerohedges suggestion that 1.2*10^6 dropped out of the work force in january was misleading becuase in reality the government distortions took place over several months. The "takedown" was exaggerated and ETFs comments were asinine.
"To sum up: yes we are adding jobs but not enough to compensate for the increase in the population. "
Not enough? Then why didn't the employment to population ratio decline?
"Zerohedges suggestion that 1.2*10^6 dropped out of the work force in january was misleading becuase in reality the government distortions took place over several months."
There were no gov't distortions. You still aren't understanding what occured with January numbers. The net change of 1.2 million people doesn't represent anyone falling out of the work force. Not even one person.
These are "new people" being counted in the working-age population. Therefore, they could not have dropped out of the work force, because they were not counted in any of the numbers until now.
"The "takedown" was exaggerated and ETFs comments were asinine."
The only asinine comment was yours. Next time try to comprehend the issue before commenting.
For those who think BLS numbers are a conspiracy, why not look at the private ADP job-creation numbers? They've actually been more bullish than BLS numbers over the past year.
No one said anything about conspiracy.
More from ZH: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/explaining-yesterdays-seasonally-adjusted-nonfarm-payroll-beat
Here's more on the topic:
Civilian labor force
Run for the hills! It's a disaster, because... uh...
"The employment to population ratio was constant. Nothing bad happened in Dec-Jan."
So you are saying the government lied when they claim the unemployment ratio dropped?
"So you are saying the government lied when they claim the unemployment ratio dropped?"
I suggest you look up the meaning of each of these statistics.
Tip: When you keep getting your arguments shot down, and then you keep coming up with new and different arguments, that is the number one sign of a mind seeking to fit facts to ideology, which is incorrect. Opinions should exist in the service of facts, while these days ideology, not religion, is the opiate of the masses.
Tip: Keep your sophistry to yourself.
People that don't have jobs are unemployed. The economy isn't adding enough jobs to compensate for the growing popoulation, especially when properly counting those that left the labor force. I don't care how the government chooses to define a statistic on any given Sunday. Facts are facts.
Franky, interestingly, with your new comment, you open up yet another variant argument. Have a nice week.
Not to add arguments (god forbid we fully explore a complex topic!) but this is the most reasoned and non-biased explanation for the labor market I've seen: