Unemployment falls below 9%

Ziggurat said:
Yes, it would. But this is what I had immediately available. And given these completely diverging directions in the trend line, where do you think the difference mostly comes from?
Click to expand...


Why speculate if there is specific data that can be presented? Perhaps you should have waited until you had more precise data available which specifically demonstrated your assertion.
 
Last edited:
Don't know if this was brought up yet:

Boehner made the claim in response to the report which included the lie that Obama made a promise of the unemployment not going over 8%. I'm wondering if this zombie lie is being repeated often by the more regular folk?
 
BenBurch said:
Not like the good old days when Illinois Tool Works had a higher stock valuation than GM, eh?
Click to expand...
Even Chrysler is making a strong comeback. They're hiring again too. No, there is no guarantee that this good news about the economy will continue, and indeed, there are lots of indicators that it won't, but to suggest that the Obama administration has somehow dealt with Bush's recession poorly is beyond fantasy. We're outperforming almost all of Europe.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Because it would be rather shocking if the 16-25 set showed stable labor participation rates and, say, the 35-45 age group took the big hit.
Click to expand...
I'm' curious as to why you would find this rather shocking. Based only on anecdotal observation, it wouldn't shock me a bit. But I'm willing to learn.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I just read that the DOW hit a 4 year high and NASDAQ hit an 11 year high today.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm

I think this also cuts in Obama's favor.

At the very least, it argues against the idea that what's wrong with the economy is regulations and capital gains taxes at such a high level that investment is discouraged. It argues against the idea that we need to do something to help investors in hopes that the largess will trickle down.
Click to expand...
Well said.

The markets reflect the positive business results which consistently the past year have shown record profits.

The reality is the business climate is very good. The problem is despite that, their isn't enough demand to force (and I chose that word carefully) businesses to do more hiring. Wages are stagnant, the housing market is still in the toilet. Consumer confidence isn't high enough for them to take a bit of risk and return to old buying habits (no comment on whether that's good or bad).

Yet somehow, it's still Obama's fault :confused:
 
Snide said:
I'm' curious as to why you would find this rather shocking.
Click to expand...

Because when the job market is tight, people entering the workforce for the first time are going to be at a disadvantage compared to people who already have work experience. And that's just for job openings: older workers are far more likely to already have jobs, and when budgets tighten, companies tend to stop new hiring before they start cutting their existing work force.

Plus, of course, the actual statistics seem to bear me out. The seasonally adjusted labor force participation rate for people 16-24 dropped from 66.1 in Jan. 2000 to 54.5 in Jan 2012, whereas for 45-54 age bracket, the drop is only from 82.8 to 80.3.

You can find other age brackets by going here to find the data series number:
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln
and then using that series number in the address.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Why speculate if there is specific data that can be presented?
Click to expand...

Because I'm lazy.

Perhaps you should have waited until you had more precise data available which specifically demonstrated your assertion.
Click to expand...

More precise data is available (see above). I felt confident in inferring beyond the data presented. Additional data appears to support my inferences, so I don't think I jumped the gun. But regardless, the data is now available to you as well.
 
Ziggurat said:
All I'm demanding is honesty. If you think someone else should pay more taxes, then say so.
Click to expand...
It looks to me that Benburch said as much in the first post on this page, so "demanding" honesty after it has been given is silly, and implying the member had not been honest is, well, dishonest itself.
 
Ziggurat said:
More precise data is available (see above). I felt confident in inferring beyond the data presented. Additional data appears to support my inferences, so I don't think I jumped the gun. But regardless, the data is now available to you as well.
Click to expand...


Noted and accepted. My point was merely that your initial chart did not explicitly support your claim as well as perhaps you thought it did.
 
Ziggurat said:
And? You can't figure out whether or not that point is correct?



Only if you don't know how to read a graph.
Click to expand...

I can read graphs just fine. The fact is, the graph you posted is misleading. In fact, it uses the number one tactic for misrepresenting data:

There are many ways to manipulate a graph. Below is a list most commonly used tactic to distort and misrepresent the data. 1. Alter the scale (not start with zero, change the intervals) 2. Alter the axis (Change intervals, pick unusual variable for x axis) 3. Avoid showing t he whole context (take it out of context) 4. Add distractions and fillers (take the attention away from the data) 5. Show 1 dimensional data with 2& 3 dimensional figures, which will distort the increase in data by higher proposition. 6. Bad choice of graphs (Unsuitable graph for the given data) 7. Bad wording and labeling (creates vagueness) 8. Bad use of color (creates false perceptions)
Click to expand...
Linky.

The purpose of a graph is to aid in communication of data. This one misrepresents the data.

It's just a distraction.

Are you trying to argue that a very slight (if even significant) decline in "labor participation" among "young people" (those under the age of 55, that is) over the last 10 years is what explains the good employment news released yesterday?

If not, what exactly is your point?

The stock market hasn't recovered? Unemployment is still increasing?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I can read graphs just fine. The fact is, the graph you posted is misleading.
Click to expand...

Then go look up the raw data. I gave the necessary links to the source, for whatever age brackets you want. Labor participation rates for young people have fallen, a lot. They aren't recovering yet. You aren't actually contesting this fact.

Are you trying to argue that a very slight (if even significant) decline in "labor participation" among "young people" (those under the age of 55, that is) over the last 10 years is what explains the good employment news released yesterday?
Click to expand...

It's about a 4.5% drop. Would you call a 4.5% rise in unemployment "very slight"? No, I don't think you would. 4.5% is a big change.

As for your question about whether or not it explains the unemployment news, well, that's a stupid question. Of course it doesn't, and that's not my point. I've already said so. But it does give us information about what that news means. There are multiple ways that official unemployment can drop. If it drops because people get jobs, then the labor participation rate should rise. But it hasn't been rising, it's flat or falling. Which tells us that unemployment dropped because people stopped looking for work, which is the other way unemployment can drop. Do you really call that good news?

The stock market hasn't recovered?
Click to expand...

That wasn't at all part of my original point, but now that you mention it, who cares about the stock market?

That's not a rhetorical question.

Unemployment is still increasing?
Click to expand...

Labor participation is still decreasing for young people.
 
Ziggurat said:
The labor participation rate remains in the toilet. People know that it's hard to get a job if you're unemployed. And you know who has been, and still is, hurting the most? Younger workers:
Click to expand...

I'd like to see your graph with ages 16-18 (who should be in high school) and 19-24 (many of whom are in college) removed. As it is, the graph might simply mean that more people are staying in high school and going to college.

Also, the unemployment rate is probably more meaningful than the labor participation rate because it doesn't include people who aren't seeking employment, such as those in school, those caring for children full-time, those who are disabled, etc.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom