PDA

View Full Version : And now for something completely different ...



LWW
01-07-2012, 05:06 AM
An honest appraisal of the US unemployment rate ... of 11.4%! (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/real-jobless-rate-114-realistic-labor-force-participation-rate)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One does not need to be a rocket scientist to grasp the fudging the BLS has been doing every month for years now in order to bring the unemployment rate lower: the BLS constantly lowers the labor force participation rate as more and more people "drop out" of the labor force for one reason or another. While there is some floating speculation that this is due to early retirement, this is completely counterfactual when one also considers the overall rise in the general civilian non institutional population. In order to back out this fudge we are redoing an analysis we did first back in August 2010, which shows what the real unemployment rate would be using a realistic labor force participation rate. To get that we used the average rate since 1980, or ever since the great moderation began. As it happens, this long-term average is 65.8% (chart 1). We then apply this participation rate to the civilian noninstitutional population to get what an "implied" labor force number is, and additionally calculate the implied unemployed using this more realistic labor force. We then show the difference between the reported and implied unemployed (chart 2). Finally, we calculate the jobless rate using this new implied data. It won't surprise anyone that as of December, the real implied unemployment rate was 11.4% (final chart) - basically where it has been ever since 2009 - and at 2.9% delta to reported, represents the widest divergence to reported data since the early 1980s. And because we know this will be the next question, extending this lunacy, America will officially have no unemployed, when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5%, which should be just before the presidential election. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
01-07-2012, 11:37 AM
Checking out the chart which extends back to 1980, it is striking that for the period from 1980 to 1984, roughly, the participation in the workforce was lower than this low number just reached during our time, roughly <s>now</s> back in July, before the stated UE rate fell below 9%.

Why is it your view that the rate of participation in the labor force that prevailed after the Reagan recovery began enough that in '84 he was talking morning again in America as his re-election slogan, is somehow unacceptably low?

Doesn't it appear to be simply the percentage of people in the workforce after any lengthy downturn that discourages people out of the work force, until things get better enough to re-encourage them to seek work?

Does it bother you that using this analysis, the UE rate for Reagan was 'really' over 15%?

LWW
01-07-2012, 12:09 PM
The truth never bothers me.

cushioncrawler
01-07-2012, 03:24 PM
The employment rate iz probly the main stat. But i dont know any historikal numbers etc.

The unemployment rate iz important too. I am thinking that usofa UE iz near 20% -- depending on how and what.

Youth UE iz praps 30%. College grads wash dishes.
The main victim iz the environment -- and the future.
mac.