Unemployment Drops Due to Shrinking Workforce

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

It's a simple truth: If the labor pool were the same size as when Obama took office in January of 2009, the unemployment rate would be 11.3%.

Today we heard a lot of deja moo (bull we've heard before) about the number of jobs created, but we heard nothing about the fact that almost 200,000 workers quit looking, and the fact that workforce participation is at its lowest level since 1983.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-05/u-s-payrolls-rose-more-than-estimated-117-000-in-july-jobless-rate-9-1-.html

The jobless rate declined as 193,000 people left the labor force and the number of unemployed dropped by 156,000. The share of the eligible population holding a job declined to 58.1 percent, the lowest since July 1983.

[jkapp]

Aug 5, 2011 16:07:37 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It's a simple truth: If the labor pool were the same size as when Obama took office in January of 2009, the unemployment rate would be 11.3%.

Today we heard a lot of deja moo (bull we've heard before) about the number of jobs created, but we heard nothing about the fact that almost 200,000 workers quit looking, and the fact that workforce participation is at its lowest level since 1983.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-05/u-s-payrolls-rose-more-than-estimated-117-000-in-july-jobless-rate-9-1-.html

The jobless rate declined as 193,000 people left the labor force and the number of unemployed dropped by 156,000. The share of the eligible population holding a job declined to 58.1 percent, the lowest since July 1983.

I believe a lot of people have also maxed out their unemployment...not sure if that also affects the numbers. ??

[mmhmm]

Another factor to be considered is the rising tide of "baby boomers" beginning to reach retirement age.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 5, 2011 16:25:38 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Another factor to be considered is the rising tide of "baby boomers" beginning to reach retirement age.

I believe that could have some effect, sure. But common sense tells us that the chronic, worsening unemployment and economic chaos has a cause other than baby boomers retiring.

[thyme4change]

about the number of jobs created, but we heard nothing about the fact that almost 200,000 workers quit looking, and the fact that workforce participation is at its lowest level since 1983.

Well - that is good news - less competition for those that are still looking. ;D

[mmhmm]

Of course, there are other mitigating factors, paul. Very few major events, positive or negative, have one, single underlying cause. I do realize, however, that the rising number of retiring "baby boomers" will continue to impact these numbers ... and that impact will increase for awhile until the wave passes.

Yes, thyme, there are some positives. While there aren't many jobs out there, less competition for those that do open up is good for folks who are honestly looking for work.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 5, 2011 16:07:37 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It's a simple truth: If the labor pool were the same size as when Obama took office in January of 2009, the unemployment rate would be 11.3%.

Today we heard a lot of deja moo (bull we've heard before) about the number of jobs created, but we heard nothing about the fact that almost 200,000 workers quit looking, and the fact that workforce participation is at its lowest level since 1983.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-05/u-s-payrolls-rose-more-than-estimated-117-000-in-july-jobless-rate-9-1-.html

The jobless rate declined as 193,000 people left the labor force and the number of unemployed dropped by 156,000. The share of the eligible population holding a job declined to 58.1 percent, the lowest since July 1983.

you are cherry picking the data again. unemployment is always adjusted in this way (to reflect those no longer looking for work, or those that retired early).

[safeharbor37]

Here's another anecdote: A friend lost his business a couple of years ago, primarily a result of a divorce he wanted ~ He didn't seek employment until he began to run out of money and found that he couldn't get a suitable job. He then renewed his license and is now an independent contractor again ~ and guess what? He's self-employed and making money. ~ scheduled a trip to Europe this fall bemoaning that he won't have much money to spend while there visiting his girlfriends family.
The point is that there is work to do for those who are willing to do it and don't demand the moon. I know low income people working double shifts and extra jobs to make ends meet ~ there's work out there for those willing to do it.
I also know of those who frequently get jobs and either don't do the job, work hard [well] enough, or simply quit when they want or have a few dollars in their pockets. If employers will hire these people, there must be jobs.
OK. There aren't a lot of really well paying jobs with great benefits and job security, but there are actually some of those around ~ the problem is that employers are rather selective about who they give these jobs to [because they are greedy and bigoted I suppose].
It really amazes me that the whiners [liberal Democrats] feel that employers should give really good jobs to people who won't really try or aren't actually qualified ~ because those people really "need" the jobs, don't you know?
And Nobel winning economists think that the solution is to spend far more money than the US economy can generate ~ but, by God, he has an ivy league degree and a Nobel Prize [like the ones who bankrupted a multi-billion hedge fund] so who are we to question his [their] wisdom?

There's a disconnect between what a person produces and his compensation which is justified in the eyes of some because he "needs" more ~ and who could be so cruel as to deny him his "needs"?

[djAdvocate]

we had an employee recently who we had to cut back. he was making about 20% more than he deserved because a series of managers had fell for his "i have to make more" sob story.

here is a guy with 3 kids and a SAHM. he is working as an ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT. and he has tons of credit card debt, and an overpriced house.

finally, we said no. we cut him back 30%. he is still working for us. do we feel badly about doing it? for him, yes. for our business, no.

[handyman2]

Does anyone understand the unemployement numbers? Why do they not count all unemployeed like those who have used up unemployemnet pay and those that no longer on the rolls by just dropping out as some say? they are still unemployed are they not? I know for a fact the unemployment rate is a lot higher in my area and the sourounding areas.

[billisonboard]

Aug 6, 2011 16:57:09 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Does anyone understand the unemployement numbers? Why do they not count all unemployeed like those who have used up unemployemnet pay and those that no longer on the rolls by just dropping out as some say? they are still unemployed are they not? I know for a fact the unemployment rate is a lot higher in my area and the sourounding areas.

Are all who are not working for compensation unemployed? Some for instances:

1) a 55 year old out every day fishing living off saved earnings
2) a 55 year old drunk on the couch having given up finding a job
3) a 55 year old out every day looking for work

1) an 18 year old out with friends every day waiting for first day of college
2) an 18 year old out with friends every day spending Grandpa's trust fund
3) an 18 year old out every day looking for work

1) a 32 year old home schooling a child while spouse is in the workforce
2) a 32 year old sitting in an alley with needle marks
3) a 32 year old out every day looking for work

Where do you draw the line?

[handyman2]

Bills I would draw the line for those to young to retire, out of unemployment checks, but still looking for a job of some kind. From my understanding the unemployement numbers do not count them any longer.
Our state unemployment numbers reflect the federal numbers but the people who deal with the unemployed say that number is at least 5 points higher.

[billisonboard]

Aug 6, 2011 17:38:40 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Bills I would draw the line for those to young to retire, out of unemployment checks, but still looking for a job of some kind. ...

How would the government identify those in that expanded circumstance? Seems labor intensive with the possibility of easy manipulation for political purposes. As it is now, counting the checks is clean and easy.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Aug 6, 2011 18:21:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 6, 2011 17:38:40 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Bills I would draw the line for those to young to retire, out of unemployment checks, but still looking for a job of some kind. ...

How would the government identify those in that expanded circumstance? Seems labor intensive with the possibility of easy manipulation for political purposes. As it is now, counting the checks is clean and easy.

...true... it's just not a full picture of unemployment...

[billisonboard]

Aug 6, 2011 18:26:06 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Aug 6, 2011 18:21:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

How would the government identify those in that expanded circumstance? Seems labor intensive with the possibility of easy manipulation for political purposes. As it is now, counting the checks is clean and easy.

...true... it's just not a full picture of unemployment...

Can't disagree with that. Considering what it would take in governmental manpower and intrusiveness to get the full picture, I am okay with what we currently have coupled with the understanding it understates reality.