Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Wallet, Feb 3, 2012.

  1. Wallet

    Wallet

  2. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Paging Ricter. Ricter, please come to the podium in the lobby. Once again, Ricter, please come to the podium located in the hotel lobby.
     
  3. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    I'm sure he's busy doing a frantic Google search, looking for a contradicting report.
     
  4. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    I wish him luck on that endeavor.
     
  5. Ricter

    Ricter

    Nothing frantic about those, but if certain people here would go to the trouble of even trying to verify the claims of the bloggers they so dearly love, it would be a lot less embarrassing for them. The sad thing is though, they're not embarrassed.

    Anyway, just reconsider the article's math for a second. Realize that it does not indicate any kind of qualitative understanding of the various groups that make up "population". Something very right and proper could be happening to the demographics of America, and probably is to an as yet unknown extent (that's where google comes in), but playing with these big, scary numbers alone completely misses that.
     
  6. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Pretty weak attempt at spin, there. Point out the flawed math, please.

    Answer me this one question. How is it that it is beneficial - or better, or stronger, or whatever you want to use as a more positive adjective - that more people are now NOT employed that those that ARE employed in the last 30 years of records? Explain how the Labor Participation record indicates that the economy is better now. Use all the demographics you like.
     
  7. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    So the 1.2M number is inaccurate?
     
  8. pspr

    pspr

    Ricter is the king of circular logic.

    In other words, Obama is making everyone so rich that they are retiring in droves and shrinking the work force. :D
     
  9. Ricter

    Ricter

    I didn't say the math is flawed, I said it obfuscates. Consider Romney. Let's say he retires today, never to work again. What effect does this have on the LFPR? That 's just one example of considering the composition of raw population numbers.
     
  10. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Romney would not be counted because people who retire are not counted in the LFPR. Only people between he ages of 16-64 who want to work. Here, just for you:

    http://economics.about.com/od/unemploymentrate/f/labor_force.htm

    The labor force participation rate is the percentage of working-age persons in an economy who:

    Are employed
    Are unemployed but looking for a job

    Typically "working-age persons" is defined as people between the ages of 16-64. People in those age groups who are not counted as participating in the labor force are typically students, homemakers, and persons under the age of 64 who are retired.

    What else ya got?
     
    #10     Feb 3, 2012