U.S. Adds 161,000 Jobs in October; Jobless Rate Ticks Down to 4.9%

[Mileage Psycho]

From the conservative Wall Street Journal

 

 

Quote

 

U.S. Adds 161,000 Jobs in October; Jobless Rate Ticks Down to 4.9%

Wage growth accelerated to its strongest pace since the recession

 

A tightening job market is delivering the strongest wage growth for U.S. workers since the recession, likely keeping the Federal Reserve on track to raise interest rates next month.

Employers added 161,000 nonfarm jobs in October, with upward revisions to the two prior months bolstering the recent trend of job gains, the Labor Department said Friday. The unemployment rate ticked down to 4.9% owing to a dip in the number of people participating in the workforce.

The highlight of Friday’s report, however, was a 2.8% year-over-year jump in average hourly earnings for private-sector workers, the largest annual rise since June 2009.

“It takes time for a tight labor market to manifest in strong wage gains,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at data and analytics firm IHS Markit. “But now we’re seeing it, and I’m pretty confident that going forward we’ll see pretty decent wage growth.”

 

The jobs report was the last major reading on the health of the U.S. economy before Election Day. But coming just four days before the election and after millions of votes already have been cast, it will likely have a muted impact on the course of the campaign

The highlight of Friday’s report, however, was a 2.8% year-over-year jump in average hourly earnings for private-sector workers, the largest annual rise since June 2009.

“It takes time for a tight labor market to manifest in strong wage gains,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at data and analytics firm IHS Markit. “But now we’re seeing it, and I’m pretty confident that going forward we’ll see pretty decent wage growth.”

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-adds-161-000-jobs-in-october-jobless-rate-ticks-down-to-4-9-1478262813

 

 

[Ez ryder]

labor participation still at a 38 yr low . but lets try to not talk about that

[motonoggin]

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

3 hours ago, Ez ryder said:

labor participation still at a 38 yr low . but lets try to not talk about that

I wonder why... Could it be the retirement of baby boomers? Do you think that maybe the largest retiring population in history could account for why it is at a 38 yr low? Nah, that wouldn't make sense. 

[Ebsell]

Meanwhile in Canada lol

 

[1jkw]

4 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I wonder why... Could it be the retirement of baby boomers? Do you think that maybe the largest retiring population in history could account for why it is at a 38 yr low? Nah, that wouldn't make sense. 

 

The best you can hope for is someone to call you a name now, other than that expect no response.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

8 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

 

The best you can hope for is someone to call you a name now, other than that expect no response.

Meh. 

[Ez ryder]

4 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I wonder why... Could it be the retirement of baby boomers? Do you think that maybe the largest retiring population in history could account for why it is at a 38 yr low? Nah, that wouldn't make sense. 

well let's try this population in 1960 was about 180mill in 2015 the U.S. population was 322726018 

so no I dont think that is it. especially when u factor many more boomers were single family member working unlike now when most family's mom and dad both have to work 

[Ez ryder]

19 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

 

The best you can hope for is someone to call you a name now, other than that expect no response.

if u would like I will call u a cheerleader on the loosing team though 

[BOHICA]

4 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I wonder why... Could it be the retirement of baby boomers? Do you think that maybe the largest retiring population in history could account for why it is at a 38 yr low? Nah, that wouldn't make sense. 

Don't people take those jobs when a boomer retires????  Boomers aren't the largest generation anymore.  Millenials unemployment rate is 12.7ish and being the largest generation currently in the US they have the greatest effect on labor participation rate and they can't find meaningful employment....  They can flop whoppers with a bachelors degree but the idea for the millenials to bust into middle class is a pipe dream cause as boomers retire those jobs they filled are eliminated and a job is created in the hospitiality industry to serve the retired boomers.

Edited November 5, 2016 by BOHICA

[1jkw]

13 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

if u would like I will call u a cheerleader on the loosing team though 

You can do what you wish, don't let facts get in the way of your opinion though, or you will see you are on the loosing team.

 

[Zambroski]

Not sure what the point was in this thread.  OP?

[Ez ryder]

19 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

You can do what you wish, don't let facts get in the way of your opinion though, or you will see you are on the loosing team.

 

FACTS like this 2010	309,876,170	0.91 %	2,747,307	1,014,100	37	2.06	34	81.4 %	252,209,506	4.47 %	6,929,725,043	3
2005	296,139,635	0.92 %	2,648,779	1,029,800	36	2.04	32	80.5 %	238,319,271	4.54 %	6,519,635,850	3
2000	282,895,741	1.22 %	3,324,043	1,738,500	35	2	31	79.5 %	224,992,587	4.62 %	6,126,622,121	3
1995	266,275,528	1.04 %	2,685,544	913,800	34	2.03	29	77.8 %	207,079,744	4.64 %	5,735,123,084	3
1990	252,847,810	0.99 %	2,431,251	737,200	33	1.91	28	75.8 %	191,644,695	4.76 %	5,309,667,699	3
1985	240,691,557	0.95 %	2,220,670	655,900	31	1.8	26	74.9 %	180,179,769	4.96 %	4,852,540,569	3
1980	229,588,208	0.95 %	2,124,929	774,600	30	1.77	25	73.9 %	169,727,449	5.17 %	4,439,632,465	3
1975	218,963,561	0.89 %	1,895,551	568,100	29	2.02	24	73.8 %	161,622,360	5.39 %	4,061,399,228	3
1970	209,485,807	0.99 %	2,016,455	299,000	28	2.58	23	73.7 %	154,485,268	5.69 %	3,682,487,691	3
1965	199,403,532	1.38 %	2,645,402	174,100	30	3.33	19	72 %	143,531,680

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

45 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

well let's try this population in 1960 was about 180mill in 2015 the U.S. population was 322726018 

so no I dont think that is it. especially when u factor many more boomers were single family member working unlike now when most family's mom and dad both have to work 

 

37 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

Don't people take those jobs when a boomer retires????  Boomers aren't the largest generation anymore.  Millenials unemployment rate is 12.7ish and being the largest generation currently in the US they have the greatest effect on labor participation rate and they can't find meaningful employment....  They can flop whoppers with a bachelors degree but the idea for the millenials to bust into middle class is a pipe dream cause as boomers retire those jobs they filled are eliminated and a job is created in the hospitiality industry to serve the retired boomers.

When either of you figure out that the participation rate is a percentage and not the actual number, let me know. When either of you have a grasp on macro economic trends in workforce participation past google, let me know that too. Because you are both dead wrong. 

And before you try to attack me for being an Obama supporter or what the fuck ever, I am a fiscal conservative who has voted R in every election I have voted in, but that does not get in the way of bad statistics and false claims on what the workforce participation rate actually is and what is entailed in it. So when your degree is in economics and statistics (mine are...) you care much less about the partisan claim being made and more about what the stats say about the economy past Fox news talking points. Or CNN for that matter. 

All this being said... The number one cause for a drop in LFPR is the accelerated rate in which baby boomers are retiring after the bounce back in the markets from the great recession. Followed closely by automation. Followed closely than after by manufacturing decline. Followed closely by our competitive advantage gap closing in many industries to include service resulting in a drop in demand for US goods and services. 

Next...

15 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

FACTS like this 2010	309,876,170	0.91 %	2,747,307	1,014,100	37	2.06	34	81.4 %	252,209,506	4.47 %	6,929,725,043	3
2005	296,139,635	0.92 %	2,648,779	1,029,800	36	2.04	32	80.5 %	238,319,271	4.54 %	6,519,635,850	3
2000	282,895,741	1.22 %	3,324,043	1,738,500	35	2	31	79.5 %	224,992,587	4.62 %	6,126,622,121	3
1995	266,275,528	1.04 %	2,685,544	913,800	34	2.03	29	77.8 %	207,079,744	4.64 %	5,735,123,084	3
1990	252,847,810	0.99 %	2,431,251	737,200	33	1.91	28	75.8 %	191,644,695	4.76 %	5,309,667,699	3
1985	240,691,557	0.95 %	2,220,670	655,900	31	1.8	26	74.9 %	180,179,769	4.96 %	4,852,540,569	3
1980	229,588,208	0.95 %	2,124,929	774,600	30	1.77	25	73.9 %	169,727,449	5.17 %	4,439,632,465	3
1975	218,963,561	0.89 %	1,895,551	568,100	29	2.02	24	73.8 %	161,622,360	5.39 %	4,061,399,228	3
1970	209,485,807	0.99 %	2,016,455	299,000	28	2.58	23	73.7 %	154,485,268	5.69 %	3,682,487,691	3
1965	199,403,532	1.38 %	2,645,402	174,100	30	3.33	19	72 %	143,531,680

And if you are going to post stats.... Post the table headings so we know what those numbers are... 

[Zambroski]

I still don't know what this thread was supposed to be.  A PSA? A cut and paste info article? A pro Obama chant?  A Hillary One? A Dem one? R?

Hey Vince...you got any thoughts of your own or you wanna just "Cut and Paste" as you go, perping as an intellectual in workforce economics.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Zambroski

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

1 hour ago, Ez ryder said:

well let's try this population in 1960 was about 180mill in 2015 the U.S. population was 322726018 

so no I dont think that is it. especially when u factor many more boomers were single family member working unlike now when most family's mom and dad both have to work 

And do you know what is included in the LFPR? And not know the words, but actually understand what that means in terms of what is and is not counted? 

Women in the 1950s and 60s who were not actively seeking work or employed were not included in the stat whatsoever. But with the rise in women in the workforce and the changing of the family dynamic, women entered into the workforce (or the counted rate) at a staggering speed. All the way until the last few years, that number rose continuously until it reached a full participation equivalent to men. Now, when that number stopped rising and leveled out, it has a large effect on the statistics and how they read. Do you understand this? 

The percentage of the population [16 years and older] that is either employed or unemployed (that is, either working or actively seeking work) From the BLS....

[Ez ryder]

I get boomers are retiring I also get that a lot of those jobs are then shipped over seas or have already been automated . do u think our numbers would be so low if not for NAFTA?

and the way I see it boomers did not make the workforce expand near as much as the 80s kids who are still at it  

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

5 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

I get boomers are retiring I also get that a lot of those jobs are then shipped over seas or have already been automated . do u think our numbers would be so low if not for NAFTA?

and the way I see it boomers did not make the workforce expand near as much as the 80s kids who are still at it  

One word answer: Yes. If US companies did not shift jobs to MX, other countries would produce and sell lower. That is it. We can bitch about manufacturing going away, but without physically preventing trade into this country we cannot stop it. LFPR will level out soon. It is truly the worst indicator of performance because of the way the stats can be skewed. I could literally adjust the LFPR to make it tell a completely opposite story, and it would not be inaccurate. It is a partisan tool that both sides use against the other when convenient. Nothing more. 

[BOHICA]

1 hour ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

 

When either of you figure out that the participation rate is a percentage and not the actual number, let me know. When either of you have a grasp on macro economic trends in workforce participation past google, let me know that too. Because you are both dead wrong. 

And before you try to attack me for being an Obama supporter or what the fuck ever, I am a fiscal conservative who has voted R in every election I have voted in, but that does not get in the way of bad statistics and false claims on what the workforce participation rate actually is and what is entailed in it. So when your degree is in economics and statistics (mine are...) you care much less about the partisan claim being made and more about what the stats say about the economy past Fox news talking points. Or CNN for that matter. 

All this being said... The number one cause for a drop in LFPR is the accelerated rate in which baby boomers are retiring after the bounce back in the markets from the great recession. Followed closely by automation. Followed closely than after by manufacturing decline. Followed closely by our competitive advantage gap closing in many industries to include service resulting in a drop in demand for US goods and services. 

Next...

And if you are going to post stats.... Post the table headings so we know what those numbers are... 

Labor participation of 55+ is up vs what it was in 2000.  While 54 and below age brackets has decreased.  The biggest age bracket decrease in participation in the labor force is the 24 and below.  Call it college and not working which really corresponds to college debt rapid increase.  No gainful employment is leaving more in college as an option as the few jobs that are being vacated by boomers there is intense competition for those positions.  Unless you are going into the hospitality/service industry for the retiring class.  Boomers are a small percentage of the total population of the US and for each one or two that retires there is one that dies and is not counted anymore in labor force participation.  The participation rate increase is a result of alot more younger people not working or participating.  Not from boomers retiring.  

Labor participation per age bracket from 2000 on to October 2016

 

Edited November 6, 2016 by BOHICA

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

1 hour ago, BOHICA said:

Labor participation of 55+ is up vs what it was in 2000.  While 54 and below age brackets has decreased.  The biggest age bracket decrease in participation in the labor force is the 24 and below.  Call it college and not working which really corresponds to college debt rapid increase.  No gainful employment is leaving more in college as an option as the few jobs that are being vacated by boomers there is intense competition for those positions.  Unless you are going into the hospitality/service industry for the retiring class.  Boomers are a small percentage of the total population of the US and for each one or two that retires there is one that dies and is not counted anymore in labor force participation.  The participation rate increase is a result of alot more younger people not working or participating.  Not from boomers retiring.  

Labor participation per age bracket from 2000 on to October 2016

 

No that is just wrong. It is trending down due to the myriad of issues such as automation, manufacturing shifts, and competitive gaps. Now, you look at that since the 90s and you see a negative trend. But then you see numbers saying it is up for 55+ since... Surprise surprise 01 (recession) and 08-09 (great recession). During the first recession, confidence really never recovered for older workers. In 08-09 it really went to hell. With the market doing well again, people are willing to retire again in a macro way of looking at this.  Without a doubt the lowering in the participation rate is from confidence not from bad signs. Continue to expect the LFPR to drop until around 2020. 

As for 24 and under, we have had the biggest push towards college in the history of this country in that time period. Not a surprise. With the economy struggling, people did indeed stay in school, but all research points towards cultural shifts being more influencing than the economy itself. Look at it this way. What percent load of our GDP do 24 and under account for? Jack shit. Which then asks the question which I addressed, what good is the LFPR for addressing economic stability? NONE!

[BOHICA]

Its not the baby boomer retirement dragging down the labor force participation in current times.  Sorry if you are taught other wise. Baby boomer only make up 28% of the population.  Its the younger generation not working or being able to find employment.  The millennials are a much larger generation especially with the influx of immigrants in that age group that are entering the US looking for work.  Our population has increased greatly without an equal increase in jobs.  LFPR has nothing to do with boomer retiring but the massive amounts of genx and millennials not working or concerned with working.  For every boomer that retires there is 2 generations competing for that one job if it sticks around....  Boomers aren't the ones driving the nail....  They are on the higher end of their career typically and will be telling some one where to drive the nail...

 A boomer retired and I got the job he had.  While some boomer jobs disappear many stick around cause they are higher level jobs and not easily replaced by automation

Edited November 6, 2016 by BOHICA

[Highmark]

Loss of 103,000 full time jobs in October 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

9 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

Its not the baby boomer retirement dragging down the labor force participation in current times.  Sorry if you are taught other wise. Baby boomer only make up a 28% of the population.  Its the younger generation not working or being able to find employment.  The millennials are a much larger generation especially with the influx of immigrants in that age group that are entering the US looking for work.  Our population has increased greatly without an equal increase in job.  LFPR has nothing to do with boomer retiring but the massive genx and millennials not working or concerned with working

No. You are not interpreting the statistics correctly. Their is a cultural shift towards higher education that accounts for the drop in 16-24. 25-54 has held steady enough. The decreases in those are accounted for with automation, manufacturing shifts, and advantage gap contraction. But... LFPR is a bad metric anyways. 

[Mainecat]

The hoping for fail crowd here is pathetic.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

7 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

The hoping for fail crowd here is pathetic.

No, actually we are having an intellectual debate here on the validity of LFPR. So go ahead and shut the fuck up you mental midget, you aren't capable of adding to a discussion like this.