Support NeoGAF

[rpmurphy]

Numbers described in detail: http://www.examiner.com/article/an-overview-of-the-october-2015-jobs-report

 

[RumblingRosco]

It's a good trend, but we still should expect more. Wages aren't moving up as far as I think most of us would like and a lot of people have simply given up looking for work. I certainly feel we're better off with Obama than Romney or McCain, but regardless, there's still a lot more to be done.

 

[Ville Pukema]

But I thought ObamaCare was evil

ObamaCare communist deathpanel tzars have been killin unemployed Americans and replacing them with working mexicans!

 

[Calamari41]

Isn't the participation rate expected to stay kinda meh due to baby boomers retiring?

Interestingly, the participation rate of people in the 55+ age range has actually been going up steadily over the past ~20 years. The 25-55 group has been dropping, and the 20-24 group has been dropping even more, but the one that's been absolutely crashing is the 16-19 age group.

One of the big problems with the labor market during and really since the recession is that baby boomers aren't retiring, because they really can't afford to.

jesus Christ some of you people are negative. Were you this negative when un-employment was at fucking 10% I'd imagine all these other numbers of under employment, labor participation were all worse or not much better at 10%.

Labor Force Participation Rate per the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

So it's not just people being Negative Nellies, it's just what's been happening. And it is worrying.

 

[Fenderputty]

Yes and no. We'd generally expect a decline in LFP because, as you say, there's an age bump caused by the boomers; but unfortunately the LFP is growing faster than that demographic ages, which implies it's not just them.

Right, I'm didnt mean to imply that's the soul reason, just a reason. Types of jobs available with the economy "doing more with less" and I've also read people trying to acquire skills, after some time unemployed, are going to school. My fear is that this is the new norm and not something tweaks in fiscal policy can help. We know tweaks in monitary isn't cutting it.

Interestingly, the participation rate of people in the 55+ age range has actually been going up steadily over the past ~20 years. The 25-55 group has been dropping, and the 20-24 group has been dropping even more, but the one that's been absolutely crashing is the 16-19 age group.

One of the big problems with the labor market during and really since the recession is that baby boomers aren't retiring, because they really can't afford to.

.

This makes sense. Something raising the SS payout age will further exacerbate

 

[Laevateinn]

Interestingly, the participation rate of people in the 55+ age range has actually been going up steadily over the past ~20 years. The 25-55 group has been dropping, and the 20-24 group has been dropping even more, but the one that's been absolutely crashing is the 16-19 age group.

One of the big problems with the labor market during and really since the recession is that baby boomers aren't retiring, because they really can't afford to.

This is why we need to expand Social Security and tell baby boomers to get the fuck out of the labor force.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

While this is good news and better than any GOP leadership could have accomplished, true employment is U6. That should be reduced to 5%

Even in the dotcom bubble U6 was 7%. Its hard to imagine the number going lower short of the government creating some kind of full employment plan.

 

[Team Alucard]

America continues its transformation into a nation of part-time waiters and burger flippers.

 

[AndyD]

Interestingly, the participation rate of people in the 55+ age range has actually been going up steadily over the past ~20 years. The 25-55 group has been dropping, and the 20-24 group has been dropping even more, but the one that's been absolutely crashing is the 16-19 age group.

One of the big problems with the labor market during and really since the recession is that baby boomers aren't retiring, because they really can't afford to.

I wonder how much of the drop in the sub 24 is due to more people being in college than before, since it's become more or less a prerequisite even for the most basic of jobs.

 

[RustyNails]

 

[Calamari41]

I wonder how much of the drop in the sub 24 is due to more people being in college than before, since it's become more or less a prerequisite even for the most basic of jobs.

It would be interesting to see the college enrollment rates for the different age groups next to the labor force participation rates for the same. I know the big thing right at the time of the recession was everybody on the edge of graduating college making the decision to stick around for a master's that they probably wouldn't have gone for if they had good job prospects. That's just anecdotal on my part though, I'd have to dig around to see if I can find the statistics.

Edit: Wow, preliminary research seems to be showing that college enrollment is down during the past few years. Let me keep digging and see if I can get some clean numbers.

Edit 2:

From the NCES

Edit 3:

Some interesting analysis on the 2014 drop from the Census Bureau

 

[Paracelsus]

America continues its transformation into a nation of part-time waiters and burger flippers.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1095537

 

[afternoon delight]

Heh. Ooh, shiny figure.

Let's not talk about the details in which job security is down, labour rates are down, employment hours down, benefits down, labour force participation is down.

But at least that doctored unemployment number is looking good.

Couldn't this be added to every US labor statistic for the past six to ten years? I mean, I agree with you and your facts but let's not rain on anybody's parade.

 

[Deku Tree]

So why is the S&P going down then?

 

[hydragonwarrior]

"Man just think how much stronger employment would be with a Republican in the White House instead of a tax and spend communist liberal"

I wish facts changed people's minds.

I really want Fox News and Limbaugh to try to convince it's viewers that the world is really flat. I think they can do it.

 

[Slayer-33]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/b...ng-unemployment-october.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0

More at link.

That graph is delicious and hilarious 😂

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So why is the S&P going down then?

Because they're expecting rates to rise. If you have to pay more interest on your loans, then you are slightly less willing to take loans and make investments with them. Less investment means less growth prospects.

 

[jmizzal]

But I thought Obama was ruining America and taking our jobs

 

[dorn.]

So why is the S&P going down then?

Higher likelihood of the Fed increasing the interest rate in december, I'd guess.

 

[bigmit3737]

So why is the S&P going down then?

The Feds will raise rates due to a sign of good economy .

If rates rise then treasury bonds will offer more money which lead to investors potentially withdrawing money from the market and invest
In treasury bonds. Banks benefits from raises rates so they are mostly up today.

 

[AndyD]

It would be interesting to see the college enrollment rates for the different age groups next to the labor force participation rates for the same. I know the big thing right at the time of the recession was everybody on the edge of graduating college making the decision to stick around for a master's that they probably wouldn't have gone for if they had good job prospects. That's just anecdotal on my part though, I'd have to dig around to see if I can find the statistics.

Edit: Wow, preliminary research seems to be showing that college enrollment is down during the past few years. Let me keep digging and see if I can get some clean numbers.

It took a big spike 07-10 then which is a big drop in the participation rate in the other graph. Then in 10 they diverge, college goes down, but so does participation (maybe grad school, or maybe a flood of college students with nothing to do).

Either way it seems the enrollment trend went up and participation down over the same long term. Late 90s and on show an increase in college and graduate enrollment that corresponds to a decrease in participation over time. Surely it's not the only factor, but that's millions more people in schools.

Undergrad enrollment:

Graduate enrollment:

Participation over the same period:

 

[Zaptruder]

Couldn't this be added to every US labor statistic for the past six to ten years? I mean, I agree with you and your facts but let's not rain on anybody's parade.

Yes it can. But it hasn't been, so we do need to bring it up every time they show 'improving' stats.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Every thread we ignore this. Why?

Because the data is seasonally adjusted to account for fluctuations such as seasonal hiring.

 

[thefro]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/23/romney-promises-to-bring-unemployment-down-to-6/

Obama, you done screwed up. Americans should have elected Romney.

We should have elected Newt to get that sweet $2.50 a gallon gas

Now we only have $2.22 a gallon gas under Obama

 

[Syph Medwes]

lol
and labour force participation?
share of jobs added being part-time vs. full-time?

 

[Calamari41]

We should have elected Newt to get that sweet $2.50 a gallon gas

Now we only have $2.22 a gallon gas under Obama

That has more to do with the fracking boom and the Saudis flooding the market in response than any specific Executive policy.

 

[clav]

I'm still looking and failing interviews.

 

[KHarvey16]

It's doctored in the sense that the way its been calculated has changed. The requirements relaxed in order to maintain the figure.

How was it changed?

 

[Zaptruder]

How was it changed?

Doing a bit of cursory research, it would appear that I'm overextending the claim... but Workforce labour participation rates have spiked significantly in the last decade compared to previous norms. Is everyone that's dropped out of the workforce someone that's truly dropped out? Or simply discounted conveniently to maintain a less worrying general unemployment figure?

 

[Horns]

The conservative media will continue to only focus on the labor force participation rate and blame the Obama economy. They'll completely ignore the decade long trend and that BLS and CBO has been telling us for 10 years (even longer) that the participation rate was going to decline regardless of economic factors. I expect if the economy continues to do well over the next year the conservative media cries will grow louder about this.

 

[Zaptruder]

The conservative media will continue to only focus on the labor force participation rate and blame the Obama economy. They'll completely ignore the decade long trend and that BLS and CBO has been telling us for 10 years (even longer) that the participation rate was going to decline regardless of economic factors. I expect if the economy continues to do well over the next year the conservative media cries will grow louder about this.

Yeah, Bams really has no direct blame for the last ten years. TPP though will seal the coffin of doom for the next 30.

Labour force participation rate, and by extension total labour hours have just been going down as a symptom of the drive for outsourcing and automation.

All the lower skill jobs that traditionally the younger demographics take because they don't have the experience and need those jobs to build them have gone away due to automation revolution - if not directly through more efficient manufacturing processes (and outsourcing), then indirectly by forcing labour pools to shift to jobs with traditionally good career paths, causing an oversupply of labour at the low levels, with much fewer spots relative to the total pool for people to move up to.

With all that said... you can't take the unemployment figure at face value while ignoring the participation rate. It's not like that participation rate is going down because people are becoming so wealthy that they no longer have to work and can retire.

 

[Yamauchi]

Every thread we ignore this. Why?

It's seasonally adjusted. Unadjusted, the US added over 1 million jobs last month.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

Great and all, but the real unemployment rate is still 20% or more.

 

[corduroygt]

Wages not growing is still a big problem though. Unfortunately The only way I can think of to make that happen is negative interest to force all those corporations hoarding cash to invest

 

[Yamauchi]

Great and all, but the real unemployment rate is still 20% or more.

Really? Private polling firm Gallup records unemployment at 5.6%. Underemployment (unemployed + those working part-time who wish to work full-time) is at 13.8%, a decline from above 20% in February 2010.

 

[KHarvey16]

Doing a bit of cursory research, it would appear that I'm overextending the claim... but Workforce labour participation rates have spiked significantly in the last decade compared to previous norms. Is everyone that's dropped out of the workforce someone that's truly dropped out? Or simply discounted conveniently to maintain a less worrying general unemployment figure?

The monthly reports always have had a number of different measures. The "official" rate is just one of them and the one the media usually reports. If you look at what they release you can see all kinds of metrics, seasonally adjusted and not. The definition of these metrics haven't changed as far as I know and changing them would make it hard to compare to previous time periods.

 

[Horns]

Yeah, Bams really has no direct blame for the last ten years. TPP though will seal the coffin of doom for the next 30.

Labour force participation rate, and by extension total labour hours have just been going down as a symptom of the drive for outsourcing and automation.

All the lower skill jobs that traditionally the younger demographics take because they don't have the experience and need those jobs to build them have gone away due to automation revolution - if not directly through more efficient manufacturing processes (and outsourcing), then indirectly by forcing labour pools to shift to jobs with traditionally good career paths, causing an oversupply of labour at the low levels, with much fewer spots relative to the total pool for people to move up to.

With all that said... you can't take the unemployment figure at face value while ignoring the participation rate. It's not like that participation rate is going down because people are becoming so wealthy that they no longer have to work and can retire.

Below are the primary reasons I've read contribute to the low participation rate. The article has links to federal reports that predate Obama stating the participation rate will decline no matter what. I'm sure the economy plays some small role in higher than expected numbers, but not what the typical Washington Times, Blaze, Breitbart, and Fox News article makes it out to be.

1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.

2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”

3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/

 

[Calamari41]

Below are the primary reasons I've read contribute to the low participation rate. The article has links to federal reports that predate Obama stating the participation rate will decline no matter what. I'm sure the economy plays some small role in higher than expected numbers, but not what the typical Washington Times, Blaze, Breitbart, and Fox News article makes it out to be.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/

It's interesting that this goes against the Census and BLS reports I've found stating that the labor participation rate of "boomers" has actually been going up, and college enrollment has been going down.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Below are the primary reasons I've read contribute to the low participation rate. The article has links to federal reports that predate Obama stating the participation rate will decline no matter what. I'm sure the economy plays some small role in higher than expected numbers, but not what the typical Washington Times, Blaze, Breitbart, and Fox News article makes it out to be.



http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/

I mean, from the same article:

So no matter who was president, and independent of the health of the economy, BLS projected in 2006 that labor force participation rates were going to go down.

But it’s also true that the decline has been even steeper than projected. For example, in that 2006 report, BLS projected the participation rate would decline to 64.5 percent in 2020. It’s already 1.7 percentage points below that in 2015.

According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in February 2014, “[T]he unusually low rate of labor force participation in recent years is attributable to three principal factors: long-term trends, especially the aging of the population; temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages; and some longer-term factors attributable to the unusual aspects of the slow recovery of the labor market, including persistently low hiring rates.”

(emphasis mine)

There is a deep skill mismatch in most Western countries where many people have grown up in a society which has taught them job skills for jobs that are either prone to automation or off-shoring and are then unable to properly engage in the labour market.

 

[AndyD]

It's interesting that this goes against the Census and BLS reports I've found stating that the labor participation rate of "boomers" has actually been going up, and college enrollment has been going down.

As you see in the graphs way above, the college and grad school rates have been going up over the longer period. You have to look at the longer term not a year or two.

 

[Calamari41]

The funniest part of news items like this is that you just know that if we were in President McCain's second term with identical numbers, many of the "Based Emperor Obama" people would be posting "well this is actually quite worrying if you look at this and this and that", and the current "well this is actually quite worrying, Obama is still a screwup" people would be posting about "Based Emperor McCain"

As you see in the graphs way above, the college and grad school rates have been going up over the longer period. You have to look at the longer term not a year or two.

Right, but we're trying to explain what's happening to labor participation rate over the short term past.

 

[Andodalf]

Hey, no idea how this stuff works, does my part time job count towards this?

 

[AndyD]

Right, but we're trying to explain what's happening to labor participation rate over the short term past.

I don't think we have enough data for enrollment in 2014 to now to tell. The projected enrollment trend was up at the 2013 point, so if it did go up, that would in part explain the lowered participation.

 

[Calamari41]

I don't think we have enough data for enrollment in 2014 to now to tell. The projected enrollment trend was up at the 2013 point, so if it did go up, that would in part explain the lowered participation.

We definitely need more information, but enrollment did indeed fall in the early part of the decade... so given all of this, I don't think we can list "more people are going to college" as a bullet point to explain why the labor participation rate has declined so much since the recession. It's a potential factor in the continuing current decline, but we can't say that for sure.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Thanks Romney.

Yep, Romney Effect.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The funniest part of news items like this is that you just know that if we were in President McCain's second term with identical numbers, many of the "Based Emperor Obama" people would be posting "well this is actually quite worrying if you look at this and this and that", and the current "well this is actually quite worrying, Obama is still a screwup" people would be posting about "Based Emperor McCain"

Maybe but the general perception would still be that McCain is a successful president. When it comes to unemployment rate it's just a matter of perception and I think this should be seen as a win under Obama, particularly against people who were all too giddy about predicting doom for America when he was elected/when the stimulus bill passed/when Obamacare was passed/when the Bush tax cuts were reversed/etc. etc. etc.

 

[toadsworth]

Shit, was this today?

 

[Lashley]

Only 5%?

England has no excuse.

 

[Calamari41]

Maybe but the general perception would still be that McCain is a successful president. When it comes to unemployment rate it's just a matter of perception and I think this should be seen as a win under Obama, particularly against people who were all too giddy about predicting doom for America when he was elected/when the stimulus bill passed/when Obamacare was passed/when the Bush tax cuts were reversed/etc. etc. etc.

I'm sure, but I still think it's funny and probably close to the truth of how people in places like this would be treating it.

Shit, was this today?

I don't think it can be, since the Dow wasn't up by that much today.

 

[Hellwarden]

Good news, but the unemployment rate doesn't really capture how the strong the economy is.

It doesn't.