I'm not sure myself but as long as it's calculated the same as it's always been it still is a positive direction.

 

Not entirely. It's rather lenient if you look at unemployment as a whole.

Not entirely. It's rather lenient if you look at unemployment as a whole.

 

But it is the way we have been calculating it for years. So it is moving in a positive direction considering it was at or over 10 a couple of years ago, and it is at 8.3 compared to the 5.?? it was when the economy is rolling. It is only not positive if you want to spin it that way.

I have to question the numbers. The number of people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. The report of the unemployment rate down to 8.3% sounds like spin to me.

Well Wall Street seemed to believe the spin as you call it .

Well Wall Street seemed to believe the spin as you call it .

Despite a population increase…

 

People working in Jan. 2009 – 142,099,000

People working in Jan. 2012 – 141,637,000

 

Yeah, sounds like spin to me.

 

Care to answer cammando's question in post #9?

But it is the way we have been calculating it for years. So it is moving in a positive direction considering it was at or over 10 a couple of years ago, and it is at 8.3 compared to the 5.?? it was when the economy is rolling. It is only not positive if you want to spin it that way.

 

You're missing my point. Compare the amount of people employed and there hasn't been an increase. The report doesn't count a significant group that has not continued to actively search for work.

You're missing my point. Compare the amount of people employed and there hasn't been an increase. The report doesn't count a significant group that has not continued to actively search for work.

 

No I am not missing your point. Those same people were not counted 10 years ago either. As to RTS's #s there are a lot of folks growing into retirement age, and a growth in population would usually occur in the younger ages who don't work, so I guess the real question is how many people were of working age in 2009 and how many are now.

No I am not missing your point. Those same people were not counted 10 years ago either. As to RTS's #s there are a lot of folks growing into retirement age, and a growth in population would usually occur in the younger ages who don't work, so I guess the real question is how many people were of working age in 2009 and how many are now.

You're telling me possibly people retired and nobody in that time became of age to work?

 

Labor force participation is at a 30 year low.

2.5 million deaths ? :idunno:

You're telling me possibly people retired and nobody in that time became of age to work?

 

Labor force participation is at a 30 year low.

 

 

I'm oblivious to the argument or viewpoints of it but I think you answered the question yourself in the first statement.

 

The baby boomers are retiring at an alarming rate and I have no doubt it may even surpass the number of people "coming of age in the work force." Just consider the birth rates dropping in our society versus what they are versus the numbers of the baby boomers.

The two big numbers in the report are jobs added/subtracted and the unemployment rate. The jobs numbers come from payroll filings. So, this number isn't calculated by taking the difference between the overall number of jobs one month to the next but from the new payroll filings reported. The unemployment rate is calculated through survey data by taking the number of people who are looking for a job but can't find one. Thus, this doesn't include the people who have quit looking for work, are in between jobs, people who have retired, people too young to work, etc. This is all done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics who have compiled these numbers for years. These aren't "Obama's" numbers.

 

Now there are plenty of criticisms of how these numbers are calculated, but those problems are generally due to the difficulty of measuring this sort of data and have always existed. There are other criticisms as well, mainly that these numbers don't tell "the whole story," such as part-time jobs, wages, or the people who have given up looking for jobs. But, as far we can tell based on comparing the numbers to past jobs reports the numbers are indicative of recovery. Slow recovery, but better than expected.

No I am not missing your point. Those same people were not counted 10 years ago either. As to RTS's #s there are a lot of folks growing into retirement age, and a growth in population would usually occur in the younger ages who don't work, so I guess the real question is how many people were of working age in 2009 and how

many are now.

 

The circumstances are different. I could care less how long they have reported it that way. These numbers are misleading especially if you are basing it on employment growth. Another huge factor is the underemployed, people who are over-educated or over-qualified, who need to be taken into account. These factors determine the true economic status and provide accurate, logical evidence.

Obama saw his shadow.

 

6 more months of Unemployment

 

.

It's too easy to manipulate numbers. Very seldom do I put any stock in a numbers report.

Look around... unemployment is still high in my world.

It's too easy to manipulate numbers. Very seldom do I put any stock in a numbers report.

Look around... unemployment is still high in my world.

 

It's high according to the report. The only news is that the trend is toward the better and it's a little better than predicted. I'm not sure why this one has garnered so much reaction, but the last several or so have been similar in terms of the news.

It's high according to the report. The only news is that the trend is toward the better and it's a little better than predicted. I'm not sure why this one has garnered so much reaction, but the last several or so have been similar in terms of the news.

 

Its gaining recognition because its election year.