yeah, they are hard to read
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories
that link has all the info you'll ever need
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories
that link has all the info you'll ever need
5% UE with a 60% LPR means 57% of Americans are working
0% UE with a 55% LPR means 55% of Americans are working
which is the argument I've made for a lifetime, and why Obama's UE numbers are way worse than advertised
saying he reduced UE to 4.7% is FAKE NEWS. If the LPR remained constant, or if we used a constant standard for the denominator (say a desired LPR of 66% for example), then Obama's UE rate would be 3% worse today than we he took office, and that horrific number would still be the best of his 8 year term
So I went to the website. Looking for definition of the methodology. I dont see it just a bunch of graphs. There are probably logical reasons why the graphs are the way they are......nothing really related to economy. For instance the white male participation rate is straight down from 87% to 70% the last 60 years so now I am to assuming that it means we went to hell in a hand basket? Every president since 1955 have been bad?
Labor force participation rate (LFPR)
Labor force participation rate (LFPR) is the percentage of the adult population which is in the labor force.
It is the Labor force divided by the adult population.
LFPR
labor force ÷ adult population)×100
Example
opulation = 3457, people with jobs= 1567, people without jobs= 245, retired = 668, adult population = 2788
Here "people without jobs" are assumed to be actively seeking one and so are unemployed.
Find:
A) The labor force:
B) Labor force participation rate:
Formula:
1) Labor force = employed + unemployed
2) Labor force participation rate (LFPR) = (labor force ÷ adult population) ×100
Solution:
A) Labor force = employed + unemployed
= 1567+245
= 1812
B) Labor force participation rate (LFPR) = (labor force ÷ adult population) ×100= (1812÷2788) ×100
= 65%
So in this example if people with jobs is 1812 and without jobs is 0 or people with jobs is 0 and people with out jobs is 1812 the participation rate is exactly the same.
How in the hell is this of any value?
Labor force participation rate (LFPR) is the percentage of the adult population which is in the labor force.
It is the Labor force divided by the adult population.
LFPR
labor force ÷ adult population)×100Example
opulation = 3457, people with jobs= 1567, people without jobs= 245, retired = 668, adult population = 2788Here "people without jobs" are assumed to be actively seeking one and so are unemployed.
Find:
A) The labor force:
B) Labor force participation rate:
Formula:
1) Labor force = employed + unemployed
2) Labor force participation rate (LFPR) = (labor force ÷ adult population) ×100
Solution:
A) Labor force = employed + unemployed
= 1567+245
= 1812
B) Labor force participation rate (LFPR) = (labor force ÷ adult population) ×100= (1812÷2788) ×100
= 65%
So in this example if people with jobs is 1812 and without jobs is 0 or people with jobs is 0 and people with out jobs is 1812 the participation rate is exactly the same.
How in the hell is this of any value?
say you are a basketball player and you miss 10% of your free throws (10% unemployment) and you shoot 50% of your teams free throw (participation rate)
now you improve by lowering your missed percentage and you now only miss 5% (HEADLINE unemployment down to 5%) but you now only shoot 25% of your teams free throws
bottom line what matters is how many points you score, going 1 for 1 and bragging about undefeated record is as misleading as running headlines about the unemployment rate going down when the participation rate decreases as well
the population of the US (and world) is increasing, creating 10k jobs in 2016 is not the same as creating 10k jobs in 1985, that's why you use percentages, but when you do that you can't consider just one metric.
that would be like looking at one stat for one player to determine how well a team performs
now you improve by lowering your missed percentage and you now only miss 5% (HEADLINE unemployment down to 5%) but you now only shoot 25% of your teams free throws
bottom line what matters is how many points you score, going 1 for 1 and bragging about undefeated record is as misleading as running headlines about the unemployment rate going down when the participation rate decreases as well
the population of the US (and world) is increasing, creating 10k jobs in 2016 is not the same as creating 10k jobs in 1985, that's why you use percentages, but when you do that you can't consider just one metric.
that would be like looking at one stat for one player to determine how well a team performs
also a lot of reports put out by obama, they start at the lowest economic point after he took office, justifying it by saying the drop was bush leftovers. the economy was declining when he took office, they waited for it to hit bottom then starting counting jobs created... like a team saying we scored 4 touchdowns in the 4th quarter but not mentioning they were down by 5 TD's and still lost the game.
going to be fun to see how Mr Trump navigates automation/inflationary pressures to keep jobs at home ........................FED raise RATES....
. Mr Trump is a brilliant salesman, do NOT underestimate him . His checks and balances are $ based. If he drops taxes to the numbers he has proposed? folks , do not overlook this, even for you haters. . take care of YOURSELF, NO ONE else really cares about you. Don't kid yourself,
. Mr Trump is a brilliant salesman, do NOT underestimate him . His checks and balances are $ based. If he drops taxes to the numbers he has proposed? folks , do not overlook this, even for you haters. . take care of YOURSELF, NO ONE else really cares about you. Don't kid yourself, I dont think I have seen how it is really calculated because the 2 examples I read and posted shows me it is meaningless. The participation rate does not matter if you are employed or unemployed. I guess until I understand that basic premise it is pointless. I used the extreme in my examples.
I read a few articles on the subject and to me there are way too many variables in this equation. Basically the United States and the workforce is a fluid entity that is changing with time. In my parents day the majority of women stayed home and raised their children. That trend started to change in the late 60's and early 70's. Thus more women entered the workforce and the participation rate went up for women. At the same time the participation rate of males went down.
The age of the workforce would have a definite impact on the participation rate if the examples given are how they are truly calculated. A retired person collecting a social security is in the equation but the minute they go into a nursing home they are out of the equation. I would think a country with a young overall dynamics like Vietnam would have a natural bias towards a higher participation rate. The dynamics of the USA work force is definitely changing with the population. Soon a much higher percentage of our population will be seniors (growing by about 40% in the by 2025 while population 25-55 will increase by only 5%). Which in your analogy of % of free throws means how well the aging population shoots free throws is a bigger impact. So unless there are policy to increase their free throw shooting % the participation rate will only decrease.
Unless what they go into a nursing home and then magically it increases?
Or implementing policies that will increase the participation rate of groups that have a low or lower participation rate like women and allowing maternity leave and paid daycare. Which is what other countries with higher rates have done.
The example of previously where it did not matter if they were employed or not but still got the same rate makes this to me not a good indicator.
Fact is our population is increasing but the age of our population is also increasing. There has to be a better measure of how the economy is doing.
The one difference I see with unemployment rate and participation rate is those looking for employment in last 4 weeks.
Remember what my dad said. Son do you like to eat? If the answer is yes....then get a job.
do you actually think Dr's from those 7 dysfunctional countries actually matter to our healthcare system?
or do you think he banned all Muslims?
maybe even the entire world?
c'mon man
ointer:The LFPR had declining trends prior to Obama taking office and will continue to decline under Trump. Why? The country is aging as baby boomers retire. This is the largest generation of people ( over 37 million over 65 and 50 million over 55) and as they age and retire, a lower percent of the population will be in the labor force. This is a structural reason for the LFPR’s recent decline—it was going to happen regardless of the underlying economic conditions or who is in office.
just like you wouldn't use one indicator to evaluate a player/team you can't just use the unemployment rate or participation rate on it's own.
if a player increases his shooting percentage, that should be a good thing, as long as he is still taking the same amount of shots.
reporting on just unemployment rate is useless and misleading unless the participation rate remains unchanged.
and
reporting on just the participation rate is useless and misleading unless the unemployment rate remains unchanged.
like you figured out the participation rate can be at 100% with 100% unemployment.
same with number of jobs.. useless number unless population remains unchanged
there are other metrics that can be looked at, like population:employment ratio
elected officials pick and choose what metrics and what time period to show what a great job they are doing.
like saying "I work 80 hours a week" but didn't sell any cars
then the next week saying "I sold 20 cars this week" and didn't show up for 3 days because you were blowing your paycheck
if a player increases his shooting percentage, that should be a good thing, as long as he is still taking the same amount of shots.
reporting on just unemployment rate is useless and misleading unless the participation rate remains unchanged.
and
reporting on just the participation rate is useless and misleading unless the unemployment rate remains unchanged.
like you figured out the participation rate can be at 100% with 100% unemployment.
same with number of jobs.. useless number unless population remains unchanged
there are other metrics that can be looked at, like population:employment ratio
elected officials pick and choose what metrics and what time period to show what a great job they are doing.
like saying "I work 80 hours a week" but didn't sell any cars
then the next week saying "I sold 20 cars this week" and didn't show up for 3 days because you were blowing your paycheck
