From the BLS page for CPS (Current Population Surveys) FAQ
6) Who is not in the labor force?
Persons not in the labor force are those who are not classified as employed or unemployed during the survey reference week.
Labor force measures are based on the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. (Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces.) The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force.
The US NILF population has nothing to do with the realities of the job market (employed/unemployed). Zero,zilch and nada. Those who use that number to make a political argument are basically ignoring both retired veterans, disabled veterans, and those currently serving in the US armed forces.
Never, ever rely on a rightwing liar (I am thinking of andimsupposedtobecrazy, but of course there are many others) for accurate data or the translation of data.
The point about the government unemployment rate is that THEY only make a ratio of employed to those still included in the labor force, but when someone no longer collects unemployment insurance and still does not have a job (even if he wants one and is looking for work), he's dropped from the "in labor force". Your own quote shows that that's the case.
So if 72/1000, 7.2% unemployment rate, is recalculated when 10 people are no longer included in the list at all, with no other changes, the new number is based on 62/990, which is a rate of less than 6.4%, but the rate calculated this way is misleading. The reductio is that when the 72 have finally fallen off the rolls, with no other changes, the rate is 0/928, or 0%
Your response is #$%$. To wit:
"The point about the government unemployment rate is that THEY only make a ratio of employed to those still included in the labor force, but when someone no longer collects unemployment insurance and still does not have a job (even if he wants one and is looking for work), he's dropped from the "in labor force". Your own quote shows that that's the case."
No - that is NOT the case: the 91.5M Americans cited are NOT part the labor force; they aren't included because SEE ORIGINAL DEFINITION.
Read it again. And again, again and again.
(A substratum of the current NILF population describes 6,162,000 members partitioned as "Persons who currently want a job." 6.7%)
A way around that would be to count "able to work" and compare that to "in labor force" but we'd have too much controversy about those hanging around during the work-day "able, but not interested; able, but not willing' able, but, but, but.... at least some of whom are perfectly willing to just take the government check. as their daddy did before them, having not yet won the lottery.
Good luck with that. There is a patheic group of "Chicken Little" types that pollute the board with their cause of the day. Need more people like you to post about on topic stuff. They are a bunch of losers with way more time than sense.
Why Washington Is Cutting Safety Nets When Most Americans Are Still in the Great Recession
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2013
So how to explain this paradox?
As of November 1 more than 47 million Americans have lost some or all of their food stamp benefits. House Republicans are pushing for further cuts. If the sequester isn’t stopped everything else poor and working-class Americans depend on will be further squeezed.
We’re not talking about a small sliver of America here. Half of all children get food stamps at some point during their childhood. Half of all adults get them sometime between ages 18 and 65. Many employers – including the nation’s largest, Walmart – now pay so little that food stamps are necessary in order to keep food on the family table, and other forms of assistance are required to keep a roof overhead.
The larger reality is that most Americans are still living in the Great Recession. Median household income continues to drop. In last week’s Washington Post-ABC poll, 75 percent rated the state of the economy as “negative” or “poor.”
So why is Washington whacking safety nets and services that a large portion of Americans need, when we still very much need them?
It’s easy to blame Republicans and the rightwing billionaires that bankroll them, and their unceasing demonization of “big government” as well as deficits. But Democrats in Washington bear some of the responsibility. In last year’s fiscal cliff debate neither party pushed to extend the payroll tax holiday or find other ways to help the working middle class and poor.
Here’s a clue: A new survey of families in the top 10 percent of net worth (done by the American Affluence Research Center) shows they’re feeling better than they’ve felt since 2007, before the Great Recession.
It’s not just that the top 10 percent have jobs and their wages are rising. The top 10 percent also owns 80 percent of the stock market. And the stock market is up a whopping 24 percent this year.
The stock market is up even though most Americans are down for two big reasons.
First, businesses are busily handing their cash back to their shareholders – buying back their stock and thereby boosting share prices – rather than using the cash to expand and hire. It makes no sense to expand and hire when most Americans don’t have the money to buy.
The S&P 500 “Buyback Index,” which measures the 100 stocks with the highest buyback ratios, has surged 40 percent this year, compared with a 24% rally for the S&P 500.
IBM has just approved another $15 billion for share buybacks on top of about $5.6 billion it set aside previously, thereby boosting its share prices even though business is sluggish. In April, Apple announced a $50 billion increase in buybacks plus a 15% rise in dividends, but even this wasn’t enough for multi-billionaire Carl Icahn, who’s now demanding that Apple use more of its $170 billion cash stash to buy back its stock and make Ichan even richer.
Big corporations can also borrow at rock-bottom rates these days in order to buy back even more of their stock — courtesy of the Fed’s $85 billion a month bond-buying program. (Ichan also wants Apple to borrow $150 billion at 3 percent interest, in order to buy back more stock and further enrich himself.)
The second big reason why shares are up while most Americans are down is corporations continue to find new ways to boost profits and share prices by cutting their labor costs – substituting software for people, cutting wages and benefits, and piling more responsibilities on each of the employees that remain.
Neither of these two strategies – buying back stock and paring payrolls – can be sustained over the long run (so you have every right to worry about another Wall Street bubble). They don’t improve a company’s products or customer service.