3 ms·

the number of Americans who are no longer in the labor force has hit an all time high of 94.7 million. If one were to factor in the low labor force participatio

the number of Americans who are no longer in the labor force has hit an all time high of 94.7 million. If one were to factor in the low labor force participation rate, the actual unemployment rate would be significantly higher than the headlines. According to CLSA economists, if the participation rate stayed at the levels before the financial crisis, the unemployment rate would be 9.6%, more than double what it was at the time of their study (fixed) [1]. [1] http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user51698/imageroot/2016/06/11/20160611_clsaunemploymentrate.JPG http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5169...

dragonwriter 10y ago
> the number of Americans who are no longer in the labor force has hit an all time high of 94.7 million. And the number of American's who are in the labor force also hit an all time high this year, and 158.9 million. You offer no reason to believe that the absolute size of the population outside of the labor force is a more relevant measure than any of the official labor force underutilization measures for the claim about unemployment. > According to CLSA economists, if the participation rate stayed at the levels before the financial crisis, the unemployment rate would be 9.6%, more than double what it is today Well, first, its 4.9% today (well, June 2016, the most recent month for which numbers are available), and 9.6% is not more than double 4.9%. Second, even if it were more appropriate to compare employment on a constant-participation-rate basis (for which you have presented no argument), 9.6% on 66% labor force participation rate (what is used as the pre-crisis rate in your source) would still be an improvement over Obama's term, since unemployment was at 9.8% the month Obama took office (considerably post-crisis), with a 65.7% LFPP (which would about 10.1% on a 66% participation rate.)
- djschnei 10y ago
  > You offer no reason to believe that the absolute size of the population outside of the labor force is a more relevant measure than any of the official labor force underutilization measures for the claim about unemployment. If I understand that sentence correctly, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a more relevant by itself, I said it needs to be factored in. It should be factored in because if people give up looking for work, that isn't a sign of a strong economy. > Well, first, its 4.9% today (well, June 2016, the most recent month for which numbers are available), and 9.6% is not more than double 4.9%. You are correct, I misspoke. I meant compared to the final unemployment report for which the CLSA studied, not today since today had not happened yet when their study was conducted. Fixed. > Second, even if it were more appropriate to compare employment on a constant-participation-rate basis (for which you have presented no argument), 9.6% on 66% labor force participation rate (what is used as the pre-crisis rate in your source) would still be an improvement over Obama's term, since unemployment was at 9.8% the month Obama took office (considerably post-crisis), with a 65.7% LFPP (which would about 10.1% on a 66% participation rate.) With the suggested metric factored in, you can clearly see there has not been an improvement between 2009 and the end of the study. Here is the graph again: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user51698/imageroot/2016/06/11/20160611_clsaunemploymentrate.JPG http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5169...

dragonwriter 10y ago

> the number of Americans who are no longer in the labor force has hit an all time high of 94.7 million. And the number of American's who are in the labor force also hit an all time high this year, and 158.9 million. You offer no reason to believe that the absolute size of the population outside of the labor force is a more relevant measure than any of the official labor force underutilization measures for the claim about unemployment. > According to CLSA economists, if the participation rate stayed at the levels before the financial crisis, the unemployment rate would be 9.6%, more than double what it is today Well, first, its 4.9% today (well, June 2016, the most recent month for which numbers are available), and 9.6% is not more than double 4.9%. Second, even if it were more appropriate to compare employment on a constant-participation-rate basis (for which you have presented no argument), 9.6% on 66% labor force participation rate (what is used as the pre-crisis rate in your source) would still be an improvement over Obama's term, since unemployment was at 9.8% the month Obama took office (considerably post-crisis), with a 65.7% LFPP (which would about 10.1% on a 66% participation rate.)

djschnei 10y ago
> You offer no reason to believe that the absolute size of the population outside of the labor force is a more relevant measure than any of the official labor force underutilization measures for the claim about unemployment. If I understand that sentence correctly, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a more relevant by itself, I said it needs to be factored in. It should be factored in because if people give up looking for work, that isn't a sign of a strong economy. > Well, first, its 4.9% today (well, June 2016, the most recent month for which numbers are available), and 9.6% is not more than double 4.9%. You are correct, I misspoke. I meant compared to the final unemployment report for which the CLSA studied, not today since today had not happened yet when their study was conducted. Fixed. > Second, even if it were more appropriate to compare employment on a constant-participation-rate basis (for which you have presented no argument), 9.6% on 66% labor force participation rate (what is used as the pre-crisis rate in your source) would still be an improvement over Obama's term, since unemployment was at 9.8% the month Obama took office (considerably post-crisis), with a 65.7% LFPP (which would about 10.1% on a 66% participation rate.) With the suggested metric factored in, you can clearly see there has not been an improvement between 2009 and the end of the study. Here is the graph again: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user51698/imageroot/2016/06/11/20160611_clsaunemploymentrate.JPG http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5169...