They have done nothing for 4 years but blame the President for their mess!!!

Last edited Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:04 PM - Edit history (1)

in November. IOW, they dropped out of the work force for purpose of calculating the unemployment rate. Had they not dropped out of the work force, the UE rate would probably have stayed the same or even increased.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/unemployment-rate-falls-more-adults-discouraged-quit-looking-165711644.html

^^-- Another great quote from your link, written by Peter Morici. Great Find! I love it!

You are aware, I hope, that the month to month changes in the household survey that produces the unemployment rate is highly volatile. I remember after the September jobs report came out in early October that the RepubliCONS were claiming that the 873,000 increase in the number of employed was faked by socialist government employees at the Bureau of Labor Statistics who were trying to boost Obama's reelection chances. Now the RepubliCONs are touting the 542,000 Americans quitting looking for jobs in November as revealed truth.

I tend to ignore month to month fluctuations in any of the numbers, especially the household survey, as do most serious economists, at least according to AP and Reuters stories that I follow (as opposed to the greed-banger blogs).

Virtually all economists put much more stock in the much larger establishment survey that comes up with the payroll jobs number -- you know that one showing that in the last 33 months, 4.6 Million jobs have been created (compare that to Peter Morici's hero Bush whose 8 year record is that he created 1.1 million payroll jobs - by creating 1.8 million government jobs and destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs.). And the 4.6 million number doesn't include the PRELIMINARY upward revision of 384,000 jobs announced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on 9/27/12 for the 12 months between March 2011 and March 2012.

More on Peter Morici: Google "Peter Morici Fox News"

More on payroll jobs and unemployment rates WITH LINKS TO OFFICIAL SOURCES, not to RW blogs at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

(I haven't updated the numbers there for the November jobs report that came out today, will do so sometime on Saturday Dec 8)

At least Morici didn't repeat the right-wing meme that people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits aren't counted in the unemployment statistics. But since that is such a common and persistent myth, here is the link debunking that, from the source of the unemployment statistics, the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

In short, the count of the unemployed and the unemployment rate is not a count of those receiving unemployment benefits, nor is unemployment benefit receiver status factored at all into any of the official unemployment rate statistics (U3, U4, U5, U6, etc.). Rather, the unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households chosen at random.

since Obama put a stimulus program forward in the fall of 2011 and Rape-publi-scum tabled it AND THEN BROUGHT FORWARD NO JOBS BILL OF THEIR OWN.

That said, the OP for this thread (and to whom I was responding) concluded with this sentence: "President Obama must be doing something right." That's as may be, but in the context of these numbers, Obama deserves neither credit nor criticism.

These numbers are nothing to celebrate. The labor participation rate actually declined by 0.2% from October to November. The economy continues in dead-cat bounce mode and no amount of rose-colored glass navel-gazing can change that. (Another measure, GDP growth, is estimated at 1.5% to 2% for 2012. While not recessionary by any stretch, that is what would be considered anemic growth in any previous recovery scenario.)

Myself, I'd like to see Obama already start going after the Rape-publi-scum now for the 2014 mid-terms as the 'Do Nothing Congress.' If any blame is to be had, it's in the House where legislation supposedly originates.

I get it. At least that's what the righties are telling us.

As for labor force participation rate, you are aware, I hope, that boomers are retiring in ever larger numbers. The statistics used in computing the population in the denominator of the labor force participation rate is the entire population 16 and over (i.e. no matter how old) except institutionalized and uniformed military. As a higher proportion of the population becomes 65 and over, the labor force participation rate has a tendency to decline. It declined 1.5 percentage points under Morici's hero Bush as well. No amount of "rose-colored glass navel-gazing" about the Bush era will change that.

Payroll jobs: Sep: +132,000, Oct: +138,000, Nov: +146,000 -- sucks, I guess.

From Post #3:

[font color = blue]"542,000 Americans stopped looking for work in November, IOW, they dropped out of the work force for purpose of calculating the unemployment rate."[/font]

I've Googled endlessly and it seems to be just something circulating in right-wing world and nowhere else.

I got curious thinking about the upcoming job numbers and wondering whether the 542,000 November number was real and if so does it really represent people who "stopped looking for work", or is that just greed-banger twaddle? Particularly since an AP or Reuters article said that 350,000 left the labor force in November (and I never saw anything about 542,000 in either of these reports). And the Bureau of Labor Statistics also reports that the labor force declined by 350,000 (see right-hand column at http://www.bls.gov/cps/ ) (I guess they might know, since they produce the statistic)

Granted, 350,000 leaving the labor force (the sum of those who became unemployed and those who quit looking for work) is nothing to gurgle ecstatically about. But it's not as bad as 542,000 by nearly 192,000.

As I mentioned in a previous posting, these household statistics show a lot of variance from month to month (statistical noise mostly), for example, here are the monthly changes in the labor force participation levels (in thousands) in the first 11 months of 2012 (it's definitely worth clicking on the source link, the ziggy-zaggy graph is a big eye-opener):

508 476 -164 -342 642 156 -150 -368 418 578 -350
(The first 2 months of data are affected by changes in population controls, whatever that means)

Source: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000?output_view=net_1mth

ON EDIT: Well, here is the graph from 2002 onward, though its still worth clicking on the above link to see the table of numbers and also to play with changing the "from" and maybe "to" dates:



And from everything I've read, the Establishment survey is a much more reliable indicator of job growth than the household survey. For example, here are the monthly changes in payroll jobs (in thousands) in the first 11 months of 2012 from the establishment survey:

275 259 143 68 87 45 181 192 132 138 146
(the last 2 months are preliminary)

Source: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

I'm still perplexed why you link to right-wingers and parrot right-wing numbers. Particularly from a source that says:

[font color = brown]"Convincing millions of Americans they don't want a job or compelling desperate workers to settle for part-time work has been the Obama Administration's most effective jobs program."[/font]

Were you expecting such a source to report the numbers correctly and with the proper interpretation and to meet DU's Terms of Service? There is a reason why those of us in the progressive community call these people "CONservatives" and "RepubliCONS".

take that gopers!

I have not heard this yet but I would not be shocked.