Obama and Employment

[tude dog]

This is interesting.

We all know the unemployment rate is based on those on the number who receive unemployment benefits.

Traditionally when one drops off the dole it is assumed he/she has some kind of employment, which does not have anything to do with the quality of employment.

All that aside.

Nice numbers, 6.6 unemployed. By itself nothing to brag about, but one can claim a positive trend.





So just how many people are working?

1,154,000 fewer Americans are working today than six years ago, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In January 2008, 146,378,000 Americans 16 and over were employed, and now in January 2014, 145,224,000 are employed, a difference of 1,154,000.

91,455,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in January, meaning they neither held a job nor actively sought one. That's a 353,000 decline from December, but 172,000 more than November.

The national labor force participation rate -- the share of Americans who had a job or were actively looking for one -- ticked up to 63 percent in January, from 62.8 percent in December.

In January, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian non-institutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military, a nursing home or other institution, reached 246,915,000 (number not seasonally adjusted). Of those, 155,460,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

CNS NEWS

[Bruv]

But more than 2002 ?

[AnneBoleyn]

"91,455,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in January, meaning they neither held a job nor actively sought one."

How do they know whether one is actively seeking employment? Maybe they are not. Maybe they Are. Many decades ago, when for a short time I collected unemployment insurance, you had to prove you were actively seeking in order to collect. The Office issuing it would demand to see a list of where you looked, references as to whom you spoke with, etc. Is that true now?

[LarsMac]

Actually, even your figures, while they may be correct, don't give the whole picture. A lot more people have become "self-employed" and don't show up in any of those figures.

Toward a Self Employed Nation? | Newgeography.com

Another interesting group that doesn't figure into the figures. Many more mothers are staying home.

Why Women Are Leaving the Workforce in Record Numbers | The Fiscal Times

[LarsMac]

AnneBoleyn;1447448 wrote: "91,455,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in January, meaning they neither held a job nor actively sought one."

How do they know whether one is actively seeking employment? Maybe they are not. Maybe they Are. Many decades ago, when for a short time I collected unemployment insurance, you had to prove you were actively seeking in order to collect. The Office issuing it would demand to see a list of where you looked, references as to whom you spoke with, etc. Is that true now?


"Actively seeking employment" is a difficult one, but used to translate from those registered with the unemployment office.

[Patsy Warnick]

Anne

your right - years ago for unemployment benefits you had to fill out forms and list where you applied & when you applied etc.

not sure if that is required now?

does any one know if that is a requirement for benefits?

Patsy

[tude dog]

AnneBoleyn;1447448 wrote: "91,455,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in January, meaning they neither held a job nor actively sought one."



How do they know whether one is actively seeking employment? Maybe they are not. Maybe they Are. Many decades ago, when for a short time I collected unemployment insurance, you had to prove you were actively seeking in order to collect. The Office issuing it would demand to see a list of where you looked, references as to whom you spoke with, etc. Is that true now?


I am not saying people stop looking for a job.

[tude dog]

LarsMac;1447449 wrote: Actually, even your figures, while they may be correct, don't give the whole picture. A lot more people have become "self-employed" and don't show up in any of those figures.


I am presenting raw numbers.

Yea, this and that, make of it what you will. I see it as a lot of unemployed. No facts to back that up, just a lifetime of personal first hand observation.

[tude dog]

Gee, wish I got me an edumaction so to put thoughts into words like this guy, but he hit the nail on the head.

I was looking for stats concerning the number of workers collecting disability and the fraud, and found this.

Why Obamacare's job losses are so scary

In a preview of the 2014 midterm battle over the Affordable Care Act, political partisans are locking horns after the Congressional Budget Office released new data showing the economy could lose the equivalent of 2 million full-time workers over the next three years and 2.5 million by 2024 thanks to the new law.




To be clear, the report does not say that the economy will generate many fewer jobs over the next decade because of the new health law. The CBO notes that the drop "stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor." In short, people will work fewer hours.


The deeper problem, the one that isn't being discussed, is how this threatens to deepen an emerging long-term problem of increased social dependency, a diminished workforce, and a lower potential growth rate for the economy. If it continues, it would lead to higher susceptibility to damaging inflation, higher interest rates and a looming fiscal crunch as the cost to service the nation's debt grows.


there is evidence that much of the recent drop in the labor participation rate down to 1970s-levels is being driven by the availability -- and the potential abuse -- of welfare programs that disincentivize work.

In 2013, the economy created 1.4 million jobs, but 2.9 million people dropped out of the workforce. As a result, 92 million Americans are now outside the confines of the job market. That's more than 37 percent of the population, up from less than 33 percent during the dot-com bubble.


"we may have an abundance of separate benefits programs that provide for the disenfranchised in a very piecemeal and inefficient manner that are also perhaps abused or overly relied upon by some, which may lead to a distortion of work incentives."




According to a presentation by Gary Alexander, Pennsylvania's secretary of public welfare, a single mom is better off earning a gross income of $29,000 and applying for welfare benefits (including children's health insurance, child care and housing subsidies) that would give her a total of $57,327. If she worked hard and earned a gross income of $69,000, her after-tax take home pay will be just $57,045.

Why then, would she take that extra shift at work or apply for a promotion? Especially since these numbers don't account for the additional health care subsidies available under ObamaCare.

If this pattern continues, we're looking at a labor shortage in this country. Already, a rising share of businesses are saying they can't find qualified applicants as the number of job openings nationwide passes the 4 million mark for the first time since March 2008, up 6 percent over last year. At the same time, the available labor force dropped 13 percent in 2013 to 16.5 million -- the lowest in five years.


Long story short, we need to ensure that we're helping those who need help, while not tempting those who don't.


ByANTHONY MIRHAYDARIMONEYWATCH

[LarsMac]

tude dog;1447510 wrote: I am presenting raw numbers.

...


I assumed you might be looking for conversation about what you were presenting. So, I was commenting.

[tude dog]

LarsMac;1447525 wrote: I assumed you might be looking for conversation about what you were presenting. So, I was commenting.


Fair enough.

I apologize for being rude.