How it is impossible to draw conclusions from employment ratio? It is self-explanatory: the amount of work age folks who are employed. It describes just what it is meant to.

By the way, doing business counts as "employed" in that ratio.

The rest of the stuff, you are right. It doesn't give you reasons why people are or aren't employed, but isn't even supposed to do so. It is just one fucking measurement. Even businesses use balanced scorecards.

My claim that there is no job for the most non-employed is based on; that no economy can suddenly create jobs for almost half of their work age population if they all want to be employed. At least with private sector, socialism style yes. As there is also much unemployed folks, who are registered to be wanting a job, it is easy to conclude that if there isn't job for the 5,5 % of folks, there isn't job for the rest 35 %:ish neither.

Better for who? Maybe the wife wants to work? How about the work hours in the society in general? Also this model relies for traditional family cohesion, that isn't the case in modern societies. There is huge amount of singles and divorced folks. If there is just one job per family; either one is fucked before marriage or after divorce. Although USA is famous for the big after divorce payments for either one; usually for the wife. But still, considering the requirement that people can (if wanting) independently support themselves economically; it requires jobs for everyone.

Also not everyone like the old model: "woman gets sold" to a man, so that the selling (and still paying) family gets someone to support her. In the model you presented; women aren't very independent.

Credit where it's due. Rochard's right about how strong the US economy is: the economy is so robust that 92,898,000 of the 249,899,000 Americans in the potential labor force (16 or older who were not in the military or an institution) are so well off that they don't have to work anymore! This is an unprecedented amount and this incredible level of economic health has not been seen since women first entered the labor force en masse in the 70s!

Source: 62.8%: Labor Force Participation Has Hovered Near 37-Year-Low for 11 Months | CNS News

yea, it's a random statistic, but what does that statistic mean? why is it going up or down?

Look at 60s to 2000s in the US:
57.4 59.2 62.8 64.4

What does that mean? Did economy improve? or did our society become more materialistic so work became more desirable? Maybe fewer people became married in that time range, leading to more people seeking work? etc


Isn't it safe to say that work is generally undesirable (from that person's perspective)? So when someone works he does so because he is forced to... Do you honestly think that wife would rather work at some meaningless job whole day, or spend time with her kids? or would 60 year old guy rather retire at 60 or put in few more years of work in? There are of course exceptions, but generally you want less work, not more...

So like I said, it's debatable whether low or high "employment-population ratio" is "good"...


p.s.
it's not about "traditional family", that example was just used to illustrate a point... same point can be made about 60 year old guy that chooses between continuing to work or retiring...

Unemployment % dropping is great but wages have been flat for years while companies rake in the profits...

With these low interest rates it sure is a great time to run a biz and sure shitty time for a lot of others

It is not random statistic. It is the most precise one that can be gotten regarding this issue. Far from random. It is already said what it describes. It is accurate because it is not subjective and has little variables. It gives the best overal picture. For example women may stay as housewives because there isn't jobs for them. Or there isn't jobs for them because they don't want it at the first place. Employment ratio doesn't care about this. It just measures the employment ratio, thus it is realiable indicator through times and between societies.

It isn't safe to say that work is meaningless or undesirable, far from that. Traditionally work has defined your social position, your income and brought meaning to life (not the only source, but important). This has changed somewhat; somewhat as a necessity (as so many haven't job).

About the wifes; why you assume the work she would be doing is meaningless? And the kids, excluding young children, they are at school during day. Work has social aspect too, of course being homemom can be too if moms hang out together. But, the one who brings the money, usually has the most influence to how it is used and who uses it.

This discussion in general is not about whether doing work is a good or bad thing. You can keep it as you want, but keeping not working as a good thing and at the same time requiring everyone making their living, doesn't equal. If people can't make their living; either their closest ones have to support them or society in general.

I don't agree, I don't think it's a reliable indicator of anything, I still think it's impossible to draw any conclusions...

one society where everyone retires at 60 would have lower employment ratio, than society where everyone retires at 70... same can be said about society where everyone is spending half their life getting PhDs instead of working... same can be said about society where money is easily made, so one person can easily support 5 family members... same can be said about societies where it's taboo or perhaps even illegal for women to work, etc...

so comparing different societies, or time periods and then concluding that low "employment-population ratio" means "jobs are not available" is a bit flawed...

I haven't said that employment ratio the only indicator to be used, but from single indicators; it gives the best overal picture. With unemployment rate you have all the same questions; but for example with 5,5 % unemployment rate you don't know that is 94,5 % of folks employed or 1 %.

It describes what it describes; I already said that you aren't even supposed to get answers to all your questions from one single indicator. There is no fucking indicator that can do that.

In 2014 auto manufactures sold 1 million more cars than they did in 2013..

Every car manufacturer sold more cars in 2014 than they did in 2013 with the exception of Ford, because they redesigned their full size truck and it didn't do so good. That means despite Ford doing wore ans being the number one in sales the entire industry still out sold the previous year with Chrysler having a 16% increase.

They are projecting 2015 will top 2006's sales which was the sales level prior to the crash..

Sorry Debbie Nay Sayers but the economy is doing just great no matter how much you don't want it to be, we know it's bad for your team and you hate Obama.. We know, we know..

Hell even in the Republican strong hold of Houston Texas one of the hardest hit in foreclosures at the start of the crash, just broke the all time record of homes sold. Looks like Texans think the economy is doing just fine and they are gobbling up the McMainsions once again..

Again I agree with you :thumbsup

Another question to ask is whether 300k jobs makes any difference to the almost 48 million who are on food stamps:

Why are 47 million Americans on food stamps? It’s the recession ? mostly. - The Washington Post

Altman: 5.5% jobless not telling true labor story - Yahoo Finance

Real figure closer to 11%

This is the modern day problem with controlling society in all nations. Anyone can go online and see the truth or see a different opinion. It's harder to fool the masses. Where do we go from here?

truth == MEDIAN(all the bullshit);

This has nothing to do with politics for me. I am not a huge fan of Obama.

I remember when the economy was bad. I've said this over and over again - Exactly half of the twenty houses on my street were vacant. People weren't just loosing their jobs; They were also loosing their houses. My town went from the fastest growing town in the United States to nearly bankrupt; All construction stopped. They were building a Sonic drive in restaurant up the street and stopped half way through - the walls were up, but they never finished it and years later they took it down.

This isn't about politics; It's about reality. The economy isn't better because of Obama; The economy is better because it couldn't get any fucking worse. The main solution to this problem was time; Obama just happened to be in office during the uptick.

Ignoring the facts just means you refuse to accept the truth.

How does someone "drop out of the workforce" and just give up totally looking for a job? If all of these new jobs are supposedly being added, wouldn't their chances of getting a job increase?

Is there some rule that says you'll never work again if you can't find a job in x amount of time, so don't bother looking anymore? That seems like some made up bullshit to perpetuate the doom and gloom. I agree with Crockett, it sounds more like a problem of the people who give up -- if that actually is what's happening.

There is no such thing as living in an area that doesn't have jobs as long as the internet exists. There is money to be made in so many ways.

Some people are content to just do nothing and complain about everything.

What about if the Internet doesn't exist

Too bad you live in the same country with the rest of the folks.

Pony Express. So much money to be made with it. Like by robbing it.

46 million Americans are 65 and over. And it is only going to get worse. Those worthless sob's need to get jobs acordo-me to the republicanos. But aint going to happen.

baddog beat him to it lol. denial ain't a river in egypt ladies.

This MK Ultra dude said something so relevant, even if his username does sound like new Colgate toothpaste :1orglaugh

We had source critical reading lessons in school. But it included every source. Including "The federalist", or whatever is the source for your graph (we were also taught to put trackable source; link or where it was published, when, page, etc.).

Just saying.

Nice .... :thumbsup

:1orglaugh

Project MKUltra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm no conspiracy theorist that shit really happened and went on for 20 years.

Government cannot be trusted, ever. I am baffled by people who can't grasp that simple fact.

Government is run by people and people can be counted on to invariably move in the direction that promotes their own self-interest over that of all others.
Our Founders understood this and tried to limit the size and scope of the federal government but I'm afraid they just didn't put in enough safeguards.

Altruism is a fine word, but in Washington DC all other seats of government that's all it is, just a word.

The word that's much more relevant is power.

Sorry I must have slept through that class :error

Simple - they weren't really looking for a job in the first place.

My older brother lost his job and went on unemployment. His (common law) wife has a full time job and makes enough to support the two of them if they cut back a little. Although my brother is pushing age fifty, the truth is he really has only had one job his entire life and only recently; He isn't qualified to do anything more than entry level work. At that point, why bother with working if you don't have to?

Three words: Upside down mortgage

What made this last recession especially bad was that the ability to simply pickup and move is no longer a viable option for all too many.

It's good you're awake enough to understand that...... 99% of people blindly believe their governments and trust them implicitly.

Are you talking about this 93 million? You're right they've decided they don't actually need a job to survive comfortably..... better to sit at home, browse facebook, watch tv and get paid for it.

But there is always a large number of Americans who do not work and are not looking for work. It blows me away that people do not understand this.

There is a difference between being unemployed and not needing to work.

Was that not the case during previous periods?

That is not forced on anyone, that is their choice. If people continue to buy houses and things which they can't afford then there will continue to be a problem.

You can choose to live with in your means and have money set aside for bad times or you can live pay check to pay check working as a slave to pay for shit you can't afford.

Many (probably most) of them could afford the house when they were working and who's to say they didn't have enough money set aside to go a good many months sans paycheck. At some point that money runs out though and if the nearest decent job is hundreds of miles away they can't sell a place that's worth less than owe on it.

Some guys get around that by doing the weekly motel room rate thing where the job is while leaving the family in the house and others find someone to rent their house and make the mortgage payments that way. A friend of mine has had a tenet in his upside down house for the last four years. These things are not always doable however.

No matter how much better things are getting, Obama haters will still hate Obama, even if they don't understand why.

Basically, in GFY you guys need to look at:

(1) Who believes the figures.

(2) Who doesn't believe figures.

Then compare the two sets of people in each category. One set is likely to be more intelligent, more well informed, higher net worth and overall higher class than the other set.

Simply put, there is a reason why we still have zero % (crisis level) interest rates over six years since the crisis. That reason is that the financial crisis is not over, it has just been patched over with QE and is bobbing along nicely. However, there is not enough global growth so you have countries trying to steal each others growth through competitive devaluations. In this environment, the US is still probably in the best position in terms of the western economies but it's not a "great" economy right now.

When I bought my house I qualified for a much larger loan. I bought a five bedroom house for the three of us, and that was plenty. It was one of five model homes here. I surely wasn't living paycheck to paycheck; I was tucking away money into savings every month - and not small amounts either. When I was unemployed and the recession hit, I was fucked. My saving grace was the money we had put into savings.

On the other hand, I did have friends here in town who continued to re-fiance their house through the boom. Every time their house went up in value, they took more money out. they didn't make much money, maybe $75k combined. Yet he had a really nice brand new truck, a boat, a motorcycle, a jeep, jet skis, and ATVs. When the recession his he lost his job. They tried to sell everything, but during the recession no one was interested in paying a decent price for someone's used toys. They eventually lost their house.

I do not believe the crisis is over.

I've said this before - This is not a four or eight year problem. It's a ten to fifteen year problem. I am forty-six years old and I've never seen us brought to our knees like this. Everything just stopped.

Is it a "great economy"? For right now - yes, it is. Maybe not compared that what we considered a great economy ten years ago, but for right now it is the best we can do.