Posted on 02/06/2015 5:45:22 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Strange that the WEEKLY new claims filed by unemployed people hasn’t been issued every Thursday AM since the trouble in Ferguson.
Last I was tracking those numbers, the New Claims were about 300,000 PER WEEK. Then Obamaites try to make a big deal out of 250,000 ‘new jobs’ for THE MONTH.
That math just doesn’t work for the overall percentage to go down, but with NEW MATH being overused in DC, they can report whatever they want & the lapdog media doesn’t say a thing.
Isn’t part of this labor participation number composed of people retiring early at age 62 and collecting reduced social security? I know at least one person who has done this. She was laid off and couldn’t find work for the longest time. Now she’s taking her benefit early. Of course the check is permanently reduced by about 25%, and that’s not good, but I’m wondering how many people are in this category.
The unemployment number was developed in the 1930's because nobody knew the depth of the depression. The household survey was part of the data set for the number. Getting reliable information in the 30's was a challenge given access to phones in rural areas. With any model, the developers had to make adjustments. One was the eliminate poeple not actively looking for work. This made sense in a time when married women generally did not work outside the home. It also made sense to adjust for drifters- the west wasn't "WILD" but not tame and many people floated around.
Today most families are two income. Some double income families prefer one part-time income others need two full-time incomes. People not looking for work aren't drifters but millennials unequipped for the work force or adults that live on welfare and/or disability that are really able workers. This is clearly a drag on the economy which is not reflected in the unemployment models developed 80 years ago. In other words, the unemployment number looks fine, but structurally, the labor market is weak.
A further question is what does the unemployment rate really mean. Many third world countries have very low unemployment. Governments have policies that encourage hiring rather than (and preferably to) economic efficiency. This leads to low wages and less investment in infrastructure. Policies that encourage hiring have low unemployment but very unsophisticated economies. Put another way, would anyone argue that Argentina's employment outlook is equal to the US because the unemployment rate similar? I think not.
Put another way, the market is driven by cronyism. The eat up the fact the Europe is attempting its own QE when there is NO data set to prove QE in anyway helped the US economy.
However, I have learned to invest in market not always on fundamentals but by what the cronies want, were the fed is putting money into and the mob mentality.
5.7%...
seriously?
I guess they just want some sort of number that their sheeperal can cling to when confronted with the absolute disaster their guy has been for the American economy.
You tell them how bad his economy is and they’ll point at the unemployment number and the DJIA as “proof” that he’s doing just fine.
A lot are in that position, no question, but it seems the conventional wisdom on this is off. The decrease in the labor participation rate is not so much in the older cohorts but in the younger ones, i.e., youth unemployment and dropping out of the workforce, which is a much more troubling thing, as far as the country is concerned.
I just checked the number for January:
It appears that number is up once again, now 93,674,000.
Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.