Trump’s Dynamic Growth Policies

October 7, 2015August 14, 2018 / L. M. Walker / 4 Comments

Top GDP Growth Rates in U.S. History

:: By: Larry Walker, II ::

In an October 4, 2015 interview on Meet the Press, Donald Trump was asked which government programs he will cut so his tax reduction plan won’t blow a hole in the deficit.

Trump’s first response described how we are going to save a lot in administrative costs by exempting millions of Americans from filing income tax returns. Under his plan, single individuals making under $25,000 and couples making less than $50,000 will not owe any income tax, and will thus not be required to file tax returns. This totally makes sense to me, as I outlined a similar plan in a post entitled, Tax Simplification, Part II – Saving $1,756 Billion, Overnight. Although it’s only part of the answer, it may actually be a bigger deal than some imagine.

Next, Mr. Trump remarked that his dynamic revenue plan focuses on growth. “We’re going to grow the economy. If China grows at 7%, they’re having a terrible year. We’re saying we can’t grow at 3% or 4%.” Overriding the host’s rude interruptions, Mr. Trump continued, “If we do 6% or 7% under my plan, everybody benefits.”

Snarky host, Chuck Todd, blurted out, “We’ve never done [sic]; we’ve never had a year at 6% or 7%.”

Of course, the public should be aware of Mr. Todd’s background. Although he may sound like an economic expert to some, he actually attended George Washington University from 1990 to 1994, majoring in political science with a minor in music, but never graduated. He certainly lacks proficiency in matters involving business, economics, or finance.

Mr. Todd would have no idea that the U.S. economy has in the past grown at rates as high as follows:

10.8% (1934)
12.9% (1936)
17.7% (1941)
18.9% (1942)
17.0% (1943)

He would likewise have no clue that, back in the good old days, the U.S. economy grew in the 7% to 8% range (see chart below):

7.3% (1984)
7.1% (1955)
8.1% (1951)
8.7% (1950)
8.0% (1944)
8.8% (1940)
8.0% (1939)
8.9% (1935)

In fact, Ronald Reagan was the last American president to put together a cogent pro-growth economic plan which thrust GDP above the 7.0% mark. Of course Mr. Todd could have looked this up before making a fool out of himself and NBC, but like many of his colleagues, he suffers from the recency effect. He is unable to see beyond the pathetic growth rates of -3.0% to 2.5%, which the U.S. has realized since 2009 (i.e. their new normal).

Mr. Trump continued to discuss how his tax plan will disincentivize corporate inversions (where U.S. companies move overseas to capitalize on lower tax rates and cheap labor). He described how his plan will incentivize U.S. companies to bring an estimated $2.1 trillion (or more) in profits held overseas back to the U.S. for domestic investment. Both policies work to raise GDP, expand the workforce and boost tax revenues.

Trump also discussed his plan to balance our longstanding trade deficits with China, Mexico, Japan and other nations through imposing a scaled tariff. Since over the last decade, trade deficits with the three named countries alone amount to $2.7 trillion, $602.6 billion, and $716.5 billion, respectively, Trump’s balanced trade initiative could add another $4.1 trillion to the national economy.

Mr. Todd continued to interrupt, “We still have a hole in the deficit that this tax plan blows open; unless you tell us what you’re cutting.” Of course this is a classic gotcha question, since most liberals view cutting anything, even waste, fraud and abuse, as a negative.

Given the anemic growth rates he and other liberals are accustomed to, failing to account for the $1.8 trillion saved by exempting millions from income tax filing requirements, and gains realized through disincentivizing corporate inversions, recovering overseas profits, and balancing trade, Chuck Todd concluded that Donald Trump’s tax plan may add as much as $10 trillion to the debt over 10 years.

To this, Mr. Trump simply reiterated, “If we can get it (i.e. the growth rate) up to 5% or 6% it’s a huge difference.”

Mr. Todd again interrupted, “Okay, 6% is something we have not done.”

Trump refuted, “Well, we used to do it in the old days.”

It turns out that Mr. Todd is wrong, and that Mr. Trump, who has the kind of thinking America needs to solve its trade, growth, and debt problems, is correct. The chart here shows U.S. GDP growth rates from 1930 through 2014. Growth of 6% or more has been achieved numerous times in the past and is entirely possible in the future. The first step in getting there is to stop listening to know-nothing media pundits. The second step is to elect a president with notable acumen in financial matters.

“Solving a multi-trillion dollar problem just may require the mind of a billionaire.”

References:

Data Worksheet

Bureau of Economic Analysis – Interactive Data

30-Year Trade Deficit with Mexico

30-Year Trade Deficit with China

Tax Simplification, Part II – Saving $1,756 Billion, Overnight

Big U.S. firms hold $2.1 trillion overseas to avoid taxes: Study

An Economic Program for Stimulating U.S. Economic Growth

U.S. Labor Force Declines by 720K

November 9, 2013August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

October Unemployment Manipulation

– By: Larry Walker II –

The big story out of the October household survey was the decline by 720,000 in the headline labor force, which largely reflected the loss of longer-term unemployed into the broader U-6 unemployment measure.

In fact, since January 2009, the U.S. Labor Force has only grown by 607,000. Yet, over the same period, 11,034,000 persons have been removed from the labor force (see chart above). Once removed, such are neither counted as employed nor unemployed, each amounting to the equivalent of zero-fifths of a person in terms of modern governmental accounting.

In Manipulation 101: The Real Unemployment Rate, we learned that as the size of the labor force erodes, the unemployment rate artificially declines. So let’s recall how the unemployment rate is calculated. The unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed persons by the size of the labor force:

[ (A) Total Unemployed / (B) Labor Force = (C) Unemployment Rate ]

Thus, the official unemployment rate of 7.3%, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on its November 8, 2013, Employment Situation Report, was calculated as follows:

However, when the 720,000 longer-term unemployed which were removed from the labor force in October are added back, the real unemployment rate actually rose to 7.7% (shown above). And, if we were to add back all long-term unemployed workers, removed from the labor force since February 2009, the real unemployment rate would be 13.4% (also shown above).

As I reported earlier this year, in Black Unemployment Rate Closer to 37.9%, there is an alternative to the federal government’s phony reporting. Shadow Government Statistics publishes a more accurate measure of unemployment based on pre-1994 BLS methodology. The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994.

In other words, the SGS Alternate Rate adds millions of long-term discouraged workers back to the BLS estimate, which only includes short-term discouraged workers. In case you didn’t catch that, this means the BLS has eliminated long-term discouraged workers (i.e. those who have been without a job for so long that they haven’t bothered to look for work in more than 12 months) from official unemployment statistics since 1994, thus distorting the true employment situation.

Accordingly, although the Bureau of Labor Statistics boasts of an official U-3 unemployment rate of 7.3%, and an official U-6 rate of 13.8%, the real unemployment rate, based on pre-1994 BLS methodology, has actually increased from 18.3% in January 2009 to 23.5% as of October 2013 (shown above).

Of course the Chief of the White House will simply continue to repeat something like, ‘Now that we’ve fixed (i.e. effed up) the nation’s health care system, it’s time to finish fixing (i.e. effing up) the economy.’

“How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?” ~ Psalm 13:1 (ESV)

Related: #unemployment #manipulation

U.S. Government Manufactures 469,000 Jobs

September 30, 2013August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 2 Comments

Phony Current Employment Statistics (CES)

“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” ― Abraham Lincoln

– By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), via its September 26th CES Preliminary Benchmark Announcement, the number of Private Sector Jobs reported in March 2013 was overstated by 136,000, and the number of Government jobs was understated by 12,000. But not to be outdone by a deteriorating economic reality, the BLS eliminated this bad news through a major change in its reporting methodology. After the change, instead of an overstatement of 124,000 nonfarm jobs (-136,000 + 12,000), the BLS will instead be reporting a net gain of 345,000 jobs on its January 2014 employment situation report. It’s magic!

Here’s what the BLS said (emphasis mine), followed by the translation in plain English.

“Each year, employment estimates from the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey are benchmarked to comprehensive counts of employment for the month of March. These counts are derived from State Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax records that nearly all employers are required to file. For National CES employment series, the annual benchmark revisions over the last 10 years have averaged plus or minus three-tenths of one percent of Total nonfarm employment. The preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision indicates an upward adjustment to March 2013 Total nonfarm employment of 345,000 (0.3 percent). This revision is impacted by a large non-economic code change in the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) that moves approximately 469,000 in employment from Private households, which is out-of-scope for CES, to the Education and health care services industry, which is in scope. After accounting for this movement, the estimate of the revision to the over-the-year change in CES from March 2012 to March 2013 is a downward revision of 124,000.”

What this means in plain English is that the BLS has once again changed the rules of the game, this time adding an estimated 469,000 Private Household Employees to its accounting of private sector jobs. So what’s wrong with that? Aren’t private household employees considered part of the private sector? The answer is no. Private household employees have never before been considered part of the private sector. The main reasons they have not been are as follows: (1) the BLS has no way of knowing how many household employees really exist, (2) no idea how many are considered full-time, part-time or temporary, and (3) will have virtually no way of tracking changes in the number of such employees on a monthly basis (i.e. its reports are issued monthly).

Unlike private sector businesses, which are surveyed monthly and file quarterly employment reports, private households are not surveyed in the same manner and only file employment reports on an annual basis. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), although household employees are most commonly associated with child care providers, such as nannies, private household employees also include service providers such as gardeners, cleaning personnel or maids, babysitters, housekeepers, private nurses or home health aids and drivers or chauffeurs. Since such employees have never been included in private sector reporting in the past, the federal government’s employment statistics after January 2014 will be forever inconsistent with every prior period.

The table above, courtesy of the BLS, shows the March 2013 preliminary benchmark revisions by major industry sector. I have added a second column showing the changes without the addition of the newly concocted 469,000 private household employees. As you can clearly see, consistent with all prior CES statistics, there are actually 124,000 fewer nonfarm jobs than previously reported.

The bottom line: The number of private sector jobs reported in March 2013 was overstated by 136,000. The number of government jobs reported for the same period was understated by 12,000. That’s reality. Those are the facts. Just like the Bureau of Economic Analysis has been overstating Gross Domestic Product due to changes in its reporting methodology, the BLS has been following suit. As the U.S. economy continues to crumble, aside from QE3, the only tool the federal government has left to combat this new reality is to lie through its teeth. Changing the rules midstream in order to paint a rosy economic scenario through phony statistical reporting is not only dishonest, but reprehensible. The problem with lying is that eventually reality catches up. When there are no longer any warning signs, yet the national economy collapses, who will you blame?

Black Unemployment Rate Closer to 37.9% ― Phony Government Statistics, Detroit and Black Americans

Entertainment R&D Boosts Federal GDP Calculation Following Formula Changes

The new GDP methodology: What you need to know: U.S. economy over $500 billion larger due to new definitions

Government Economic Reports: What You’ve Suspected but Were Afraid to Ask.

Black Unemployment Rate Closer to 37.9%

August 3, 2013August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 4 Comments

“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.” ~ Abraham Lincoln ~

Phony Government Statistics, Detroit and Black Americans

– By: Larry Walker II –

One way the federal government could help reduce Black-on-Black crime and address the nation’s poverty crisis would be to start telling the truth about unemployment. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a set of completely phony statistics each and every month, in order to convince the public that our economic condition is rosier than it appears. However, if the economy is doing so well, then why has the number of Americans living in poverty recently spiked to levels not seen since the mid-1960s? What’s up with that? Could it be that the employment situation and more specifically Black unemployment is far worse than government statistics portend?

For example, in December 2009, the BLS estimated that the official unemployment rate in Detroit, Michigan was 27.0%. However, at the same time, Detroit Mayor Dave Bing stated that the city’s official unemployment rate was as believable as Santa Claus, proffering that it was instead closer to 50.0%. Considering that less than four years later, Detroit would file the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, he was probably on the right track. So how did Mayor Bing come up with his figure?

Well, the BLS estimated that for the year ending September 2009, the State of Michigan’s official unemployment rate was 12.6%, but according to its broadest definition of unemployment, the state unemployment rate was 20.9%, or 66.0% higher than the official rate. Therefore, since the City of Detroit’s official unemployment rate for October 2009 was 27.0%, applying the broader rate meant the city’s rate was really as high as 44.8% (27.0 * 1.66). Since Mayor Bing’s estimate was more in the ballpark than the BLS, it might be a good idea to apply this same logic nationwide, especially when it comes to Black Americans, who as a whole have traditionally sustained the nation’s worst levels of unemployment.

Real Unemployment

Every month, the BLS publishes its official U-3 unemployment rate, a headline number that almost everyone is familiar with, but also releases the lesser known U-6 unemployment rate, its broadest measure of unemployment. U-6 includes short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time work. When we compare current BLS statistics, which are based on a flawed methodology only in place post-1993, against its pre-1994 methodology, we discover that the official U-3 rate is really closer to 12.8%, not the 7.4% figure published on August 2, 2013, and that the broader U-6 rate is really closer to 23.3%, rather than 14.0%.

There is actually an alternative to the federal government’s phony reporting. A private organization, Shadow Government Statistics, publishes a more accurate measure of unemployment, which is based on pre-1994 BLS methodology. The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. In other words, the SGS Alternate Rate adds millions of long-term discouraged workers back to the BLS estimate, which only includes short-term discouraged workers.

In case you didn’t catch that, allow me to clarify. What this means is the BLS has eliminated long-term discouraged workers (i.e. those who have been without a job for so long, they haven’t bothered to look for more than 12 months) from official unemployment statistics since 1994, thus distorting the real employment situation. And herein lies the problem: If you knew that a U.S. city was battling an unemployment rate of 27.0%, while the federal government was busy creating jobs in Egypt, China and everywhere else but that city, what would that tell you? Would it have made any difference if you knew that city’s unemployment rate was really 44.8% or greater? What do you think millions of long-term discouraged workers are up to, just sitting around laughing, joking and waiting on a government handout? Not likely, for an idle mind is the devil’s workshop.

To get a better idea of what’s really going on in America, we will begin by analyzing the federal government’s broadest measure of unemployment (U-6). Then we will compute the difference between U-6 and Shadow Government Statistics Alternate Unemployment Rate (Real U-6). Next, we’ll analyze the government’s official U-3 unemployment rate, then use the difference between U-6 and Real U-6 to extrapolate the real official unemployment rate (Real U-3). Finally, we will focus on unemployment among Black Americans, and using the same formula, project the real unemployment rate for Black Americans.

What’s the point? The first step in solving any problem is to define it. My mission today is to better define the problem, not necessarily solve it. There’s not a person in this nation, with the exception of those who still believe in Santa Claus, who truly believes the official unemployment rate is 7.4%, as of August 2, 2013, or that the total unemployment rate is just 14.0%. Nor is there any way on earth that Black folks, especially those in or around inner-cities, believe the Black unemployment rate is just 12.6%. So let’s get real. With that, here we go.

U-6 – Total Unemployment

When it comes to the federal government’s broadest measure of unemployment, U-6, according to the BLS the rate was 14.2% for January 2009, peaked at 17.1% in October through December of 2009, once again in April of 2010, and has since declined to 14.0%, as of July 2013. A closer look reveals the following annual averages, since 2003:

By comparison, U-6 averaged between 8.2% and 10.6% in the six years prior to the Great Recession, including 2008, the first full year thereof, but since the end of 2008 has averaged between 14.1% and 16.7%. What does that tell you? It tells me that notwithstanding the fact that the Great Recession ended in June of 2009, a solid four years ago, the total unemployment rate in 2013 is averaging 33.0% higher than in it did at the end of 2008 ((14.1 – 10.6) / 10.6), the first full year of the recession.

In other words, U-6 has grown 33.0% worse, since Potus 44 took the reigns, and that’s going by the government’s most optimistic estimates, based on a set of phony statistics which fail to count the number of long-term discouraged workers. Well, that’s not very encouraging.

SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate

According to Shadow Government Statistics, the BLS has defined a certain segment of society, long-term discouraged workers, out of existence since 1994. It kind of sounds like the old three-fifths of a man theory, only now millions are counted as zero-fifths of a person, at least when it comes to official unemployment statistics. Oh you can vote alright, but if you’re poor, unemployed and haven’t searched for work in more than 12 month’s, you don’t really matter. Thus, the real unemployment rate is far worse than what the federal government would have us believe. The chart that follows is the latest from Shadow Government Statistics.

As you can see visually, and according to data from Shadow Government Statistics, for January 2009, instead of the federal government’s phony unemployment rates, U-3 of 7.8% and U-6 of 14.2%, real total unemployment (Real U-6) was actually 18.3%. But even more stunning is the fact that since January of 2009, instead of both rates peaking in 2009-2010 before declining to current BLS levels, Real U-6 has never declined, but has rather increased from 18.3% to 23.3%.

Summary Conclusion 1: The U-6 unemployment rate is really closer to 23.3%. When compared to the BLS U-6 rate, Real U-6 was 28.8% higher for January 2009 than we were led to believe ((18.3 – 14.2) / 14.2). Also, instead of declining, Real U-6 has since increased by an additional 27.3% ((23.3 – 18.3) / 18.3). In other words, Real U-6 is currently 64.0% worse than the BLS reported for January 2009 ((23.3 – 14.2) / 14.2). Got that?

U-3 – Official Unemployment

According to BLS, the official U-3 unemployment rate was 7.8% for January of 2009, peaked at 10.0% in October of 2009, and has since declined to 7.4% as of July 2013. A closer look reveals the following annual averages, since 2003:

By comparison, U-3 averaged between 4.6% and 6.0% in six years prior to the great recession, including 2008, the first full year thereof, but since the end of 2008 has averaged between 7.6% and 9.6%. Keeping in mind that the Great Recession officially commenced in December 2007 and ended in June of 2009, what does that tell you? It tells me that undeterred by the federal government’s phony statistics; U-3 is worse off today, on average, than after the first 13 month’s of the recession, which only lasted a total of 19 months.

In other words, in contempt of the fact that the Great Recession ended in mid-2009, just over four years ago, the average U-3 unemployment rate in 2013 is 31.0% worse than at the end of 2008 ((7.6 – 5.8) / 5.8). Although bad enough on its lonesome, remember that this is based on the federal governments most optimistic estimates, steeped in the same phony methodology mentioned above. So then what is the real unemployment rate?

Summary Conclusion 2: As shown in Summary Conclusion 1, the Real U-6 unemployment rate is currently 64.0% higher than the BLS reported for January 2009. Therefore, I contend that the real official unemployment rate (Real U-3) is also 64.0% greater than the government’s January 2009 figure. Since U-3 was said to be 7.8% for January 2009, Real U-3 is closer to 12.8% today (7.8 * 1.64). Are you still with me? Good. Now let’s look at the unemployment rate for Black Americans.

Black Unemployment

According to BLS, the official unemployment rate for Black Americans was 12.7% for January 2009, peaked at 16.8% in March of 2010, and is currently 12.6%, as of July 2013. A closer look reveals the following annual averages, since 2003:

By comparison, the official unemployment rate for Black Americans averaged between 8.3% and 10.8% in the six years prior the Great Recession, including 2008, the first full year thereof, but since the end of 2008 has averaged between 13.4% and 16.0%. Again, what does that tell you? It tells me that even though the Great Recession ended in mid-2009, more than 48 months ago, the average annual unemployment rate for Black Americans is now 32.6% worse than at the end of 2008 ((13.4 – 10.1) / 10.1).

In other words, the official Black unemployment rate has grown worse by 32.6%, since Potus 44 took the reigns. Yet again, I remind you that these are the federal government’s most optimistic estimates, based on phony BLS methodology, as mentioned above. [It’s worth noting that the unemployment rate for Black Americans more closely mimics the U-6 rate, and is currently 70.2% higher than the official U-3 rate ((12.6 – 7.4) / 7.4).] So even after reducing millions of Blacks to zero-fifths of a person, for unemployment purposes, the Black unemployment situation is completely unacceptable.

Summary Conclusion 3: As shown in Summary Conclusion 1, the Real U-6 unemployment rate is currently 64.0% higher than the BLS reported for January 2009. Therefore, I contend that the official unemployment rate for Black Americans is also 64.0% greater than the government’s January 2009 figure. Since the Black unemployment rate was reported to be 12.7% for January 2009, the official unemployment rate for Black Americans is really closer to 20.8% today (12.7 * 1.64), or 65.0% higher than BLS reported on August 2, 2013. But that’s not the end of the story.

Now we must take into consideration Detroit Mayor Dave Bing’s 2009 assessment of Detroit’s real unemployment rate. When we apply Mayor Bing’s formula to the nation as a whole, we can draw the following conclusion.

Conclusion: The official U-3 unemployment rate is really closer to 12.8%, as shown in Summary Conclusion 2. The total U-6 unemployment rate is really closer to 23.3%, as shown in Summary Conclusion 1, or 82.0% higher than Real U-3 ((23.3 – 12.8) / 12.8). Therefore, I contend that the total unemployment rate for Black Americans is also 82.0% higher than the figure shown in Summary Conclusion 3. Applying the broader measure means the unemployment rate for Black Americans is actually as high as 37.9% (20.8 * 1.82).

The Wrap

The first step in solving any problem is to define it. Publishing phony employment statistics is just one of the many games slick talking Washington politicians play to hide the truth. By masking reality since 1994, the U.S. government has been outright lying to itself and the general public for at least two decades. So what else are they lying about? What about inflation, GDP, the money supply, and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, to name a few?

According to the federal government, as of July 2013, the official U-3 unemployment rate was 7.4%, U-6 total unemployment was 14.0%, and the official rate for Black Americans was 12.6%. But these are phony estimates, which fail to include the number of long-term discouraged workers. When we include those who should matter the most, those currently counted as zero-fifths of a person, we find that Real U-3 is 12.8%, Real U-6 is hovering at 23.3%, and the unemployment rate for Black Americans is really closer to 37.9%.

Real U-3: 12.8% (vs. 7.4%)
Real U-6: 23.3% (vs. 14.0%)
Black Unemployment: 37.9% (vs. 12.6%)

Not only has the unemployment rate grown 64.0% worse since January 2009, for all Americans, but the unemployment rate for Black Americans is really closer to 37.9% nationwide. However, within more problematic, high-crime, urban areas across the nation, such as Detroit, Black unemployment is now deathly critical. If you want to know the real unemployment rate in your city, state or locality, take the federal government’s official rate from January 2009, multiply it by 1.64, then take the result and multiply it again by 1.82, and you’ll have a more accurate figure.

When Potus 44 starts throwing around words like phony, as he prances around waving a golf club and berating folks for locking their car doors, he should be mindful that the very core of the government, over which he so arrogantly presides, may in fact be built on a lie. If Potus 44 truly believes the unemployment rate for Black Americans is 12.6%, then he should probably just take another nap, play another round of golf, give another incoherent speech, and then take another vacation. But if he believes the real unemployment rate for Blacks is closer to 37.9%, and construes it to be the main culprit behind poverty levels not seen since the mid-1960s, and a reason why 93% of Blacks are being murdered by other Blacks, then he should act accordingly.

However, race-baiting, raising the minimum wage, hiking income taxes, regulating the coal industry out of existence, delaying the Keystone XL Pipeline, and mandating that every American buy health insurance are all policies which lead to fewer job opportunities, not more. So perhaps the solution to our problem lies not in government doing more, but in government undoing much of what it has already done. My mission today was not to solve America’s problems, but rather to help define them. It’s high time the federal government starts giving us the truth. Now here’s a riddle: Detroit has fallen! Detroit has fallen! How long before the United States faces bankruptcy?

References:

Shadow Government Statistics – http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Confounded Interest – The Daunting Gap In Unemployment and Homeownership By Race – Blacks In Last Place.

U.S. Jobs Deficit Grows by 47,000 in June

July 7, 2012August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 2 Comments

Going Around in Circles

~ “If you’re lost in the woods and you feel like you’re walking in circles, you probably are.” ~ Discovery News

– By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the U.S. economy needs to create a minimum of 127,000 each month in order to keep pace with population growth. And based on today’s Employment Situation Report, the economy created just 80,000 jobs in June. That means the jobs deficit increased by another 47,000 last month. Yet, according to Barack Obama, “That’s a step in the right direction.” However, according to economic common sense, it’s another step towards stagnation, then decay and dissolution.

He added, “We can’t be satisfied because our goal was never to just keep on working to get back to where we were back in 2007.” So according to Obama, his goal was never to just keep working to get back to where we were in 2007, a day when we had 4,805,000 jobs more than we have currently. “I want to get back to a time when middle-class families and those working to get into the middle class have some basic security,” he said. We are left to wonder what time that was – the 1920’s, 50’s, 60’s, 80’s, 90’s, or the 2000’s. But based on the latest jobs report, that time could have been any year prior to Obama’s term.

Returning to December of 2007, the month the last known recession began, and applying the Economic Policy Institute’s (EPI) estimate — that we need to create a minimum of 127,000 jobs each and every month to keep up with population growth — we discover that the jobs deficit, since then, has grown to 11,790,000. The deficit stood at 5,165,000 jobs when Obama was inaugurated, and has since grown by an additional 6,625,000. So does that sound like, “a step in the right direction?”

As you can see graphically in the chart above, the jobs deficit has little changed since left-wing Economist Paul Krugman’s December of 2009 assessment. According to Krugman, to be meaningful, the economy needed to add 300,000 jobs a month, from the end of Obama’s 11th month in office, through December of 2014. But since then, as shown in the corresponding table, the jobs deficit hasn’t decreased at all.

Last month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. economy created a mere 80,000 jobs, on top of a revised 78,000 in May, and 68,000 in April. But the economy needs to create 127,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth. So that means we’ve fallen 156,000 jobs farther behind over the last quarter. In fact, at last quarter’s pace, the U.S. will find itself another 3,120,000 jobs in arrears in another 5 years (156,000 jobs * 20 quarters). We know that any result short of a 127,000 monthly increase in Nonfarm payroll jobs adds to the current jobs deficit, but we should be mindful of an even more important statistic: The number of jobs we need to create each and every month, in order to catch up.

New Jobs Benchmark

When we tweak Krugman’s December 2009 benchmark with the latest figures, we discover that to be meaningful, the number of jobs needed to return to more or less full employment by December of 2014, or within 2 ½ years is now 520,000 jobs a month, as follows:

In order to keep up with population growth, we would need to create 127,000 jobs times 30 months, or 3,810,000. Add in the need to make up for lost ground and we’re at around 15,600,000 (3,810,000 + 11,790,000) over the next 30 months — or 520,000 jobs a month.

However, if we just simply write-off Barack Obama’s last 3 ½ years as a foolish, but costly experiment, and extend the target date out another 5 years, or through June of 2017, then we come up with 323,500 jobs a month, as follows:

In order to keep up with population growth, we would need to create 127,000 jobs times 60 months, or 7,620,000. Add in the need to make up for lost ground and we’re at around 19,410,000 (7,620,000 + 11,790,000) over the next 60 months — or 323,500 jobs a month.

In other words, we aren’t moving in the right direction, we’re going in circles. Since the economy now needs to create 520,000 each and every month to be on a track towards full employment within 2 ½ years, or 323,500 jobs each and every month to be on track towards full employment within 5 years, Obama’s record of 80,000 jobs in June has only pushed us farther away from the mark. In fact, as I alluded to above, instead of heading towards full-employment, we are currently on track towards increasing the jobs deficit by another 3,120,000 jobs over the next 5 years.

The Bottom Line: As each month passes in which fewer than 127,000 jobs are created, the goal of full employment is pushed farther away. When Barack Obama was sworn into office, the U.S. was running at a deficit of 5,165,000 jobs, but since then the deficit has increased by an additional 6,625,000 jobs (see table). So we are NOT moving in the right direction, no matter what Barack Obama thinks. We’re just going around in circles. The Spiritual Principle behind Step One in any recovery program is Honesty. When Barack Obama says we are moving in the right direction, he’s not being honest with himself, or with the American people.

Photo Credit: Mr. Barlow’s Blog – Are you going round in circles?

Data: Worksheet on Google Docs

The Great, Obama Unemployment Rate Scam | LibertyWorks

February 10, 2012August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / Leave a comment

The Great, Obama Unemployment Rate Scam *

February 9, 2012 | By BoomerJeff *

Political communication in America is largely an effort to influence the perceptions of those who pay little attention to politics by stripping complex concepts and issues down to easily understood statistics and simplistic soundbites. In each of his first 33 months in office President Obama suffered because the easily understood Unemployment Rate remained very high. But over the past four months it fell from 9% to 8.3% and Obama and his media supporters are making the most of it. They tell us the economy has improved so much it is no longer an election issue and the President is no longer at risk of losing.

But it turns out that the Unemployment Rate statistic is misleading. It turns out that another statistic, the “Labor Force Participation Rate” has also declined. [Continued below the chart]

The Labor Force is the sum of all persons who have jobs plus all who are officially classified as “unemployed.”

The unemployment rate is computed by dividing the number of unemployed by the the labor force.

The labor force participation rate is the percentage of all working age adults who are officially counted as “in the labor force.”

Today, there are millions of people who want jobs but don’t qualify as “unemployed” by meeting government criteria and are thus counted as “not in the labor force.” We know this to be true because, as the chart shows, the participation rate has steadily declined for three years. Excluding people from the labor force artificially lowers the unemployment rate.

The chart above shows that the decline in the unemployment rate coincides with a decline in the labor force participation rate. The next chart shows what would have happened to the unemployment rate if the labor force participation rate had not not changed since the beginning of 2009. [Continued below the chart]

The last chart below tracks labor force participation and unemployment during the Reagan Administration. The labor force grew by 9% or 15.5 million people during the Reagan years. Participation grew from 63.9% to 66.1%. This chart is the picture of successful economic policies that increased liberty and decreased taxes and government intervention in the economy. Millions of new people entered the labor force but after the severe Recession Reagan inherited the unemployment rate declined because employers were able to replace all the jobs lost in the recession and hire the millions of people who entered the labor force. Reagan’s unemployment rate was not artificially reduced by excluding millions from of the labor force calculation and he was rewarded with reelection to a second term by the largest Electoral College landslide in American history.

Via: LibertyWorks – The Great, Obama Unemployment Rate Scam

I concur!

Manipulation 201: Playing With Unemployment

February 4, 2012August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 3 Comments

*“Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin” ~ Book of Daniel, Ch. 5 *

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

The writing’s on the wall! The massive decline of new entrants to the civilian labor force, which is shown graphically in the chart above, directly impacts the unemployment rate, making the employment situation appear far better than it actually is. If the 9.3 million workers who have effectively dropped out of the labor force, since the end of 2008, were instead of being excluded, counted as unemployed, the real unemployment rate would be 13.0% instead of yesterday’s published rate of 8.3%. Even if only 55.0% of those who have been incontestably and wrongfully removed from the labor force were counted, which would be consistent with the eight-year average prior to Obama, the real unemployment rate would be 10.9%, not 8.3%. Never before in history has there been a more blatant manipulation of official labor statistics.

Those focusing all their attention on the number of jobs created in recent months are focusing on the wrong data. Lest we forget, the Bureau of Labor Statistics includes in its definition of the word employed – “persons 16 years and over in the civilian non-institutional population who, during the reference week, did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees.” So for all we know, a huge portion of those 200K and some odd jobs, allegedly created last month, were people hired for one hour, paid with taxpayer subsidized grants or loans, and working to register democratic voters in an effort to guarantee another round of Obamanomics. You laugh!

While we do need to watch out for the above, we really need to focus on the number of persons who have been summarily deleted from the labor force over the past three years. According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the civilian labor force declined by 802,000 over this period. And even worse, another 8,481,000 new entrants, the majority of whom would normally have entered the labor force, are unaccounted for. So where are they? The Great Recession officially ended in June of 2009, yet 9.3 million Americans have gone missing over the past three years and one month. Thus, the question is, are they really missing, or has someone manipulated the unemployment rate in an effort to improve Obama’s chances for re-election?

The dilemma posed by a declining labor force is that as the civilian non-institutional population continues to grow by approximately 1.0% each year, millions of potential workers are forced out of the market. In other words, if there are not enough jobs for the existing workforce, then there are no jobs at all for the approximately 2 million new entrants who come into the job market each year. The devastating result is that a smaller proportion of the populace is working today, to support a much larger cluster of retirees, the unemployed, and those who are otherwise unaccounted for.

As you can see in the table above, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Table A-1, not seasonally adjusted), the labor force grew from 142,583,000 at the end of the year 2000, to 154,287,000 by the end of 2008, for an increase of 11,704,000 workers over the eight-year period immediately preceding Obama. As such, the labor force was expanding by an average of 1,463,000 new entrants per year, for the eight years prior to 2009.

But from the beginning of 2009 through the end of 2011, the labor force declined from 154,287,000 to 153,617,000. Thus, after three consecutive years of Obamanomics, the labor force declined by a total of 670,000, for an average loss of 223,333 workers per year. The table has been extended through January of 2012, and as you can see, the labor force continued to decline by another 132,000 in January of 2012, as the number of workers fell from 153,617,000 to 153,485,000. Thus, a total of 802,000 have left the labor force since the end of 2008.

So it may be said that Obamanomics has caused the labor force, which should be expanding each year by a multiple of the increase in civilian non-institutional population, to instead be slashed by a total of 802,000 workers in just 37 month’s. This would be bad enough in and of itself; however if we are to believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from a macro view, the real employment situation is far worse.

When Obama’s declining labor force is compared with the growth of the civilian non-institutional population, also shown in the table above, we can see that a total of 9.3 million Americans have effectively been removed from the labor force during the last three years and one month (add together the amounts highlighted in the lower right-hand corner). This is the difference between periodic changes in the civilian non-institutional population (the 3rd column from the left), minus periodic changes in the labor force (the 2nd column from the right). It represents the periodic increase in the civilian working age population, which has been unfortunately added to the ranks of those counted as not in the labor force. And as we pointed out previously, a total of 6.5 million workers were removed in the three year period ending with 2011.

To be specific:

In 2009, the civilian non-institutional population grew by 2,013,000, yet the labor force declined by 145,000, resulting in an increase of 2,158,000 persons counted as not part of the labor force. In other words, 2.1 million workers went missing in action (MIA).
In 2010, the civilian non-institutional population grew by 2,029,000, yet the labor force continued to decline by another 253,000, resulting in an additional 2,282,000 counted as not in the labor force. That’s another 2.3 million MIA’s.
Then in 2011, the civilian non-institutional population again grew, this time by 1,788,000, yet the labor force declined by another 272,000, resulting in 2,060,000 more persons counted as not part of the labor force. This resulted in another 2.1 million MIA’s.
To top things off, in the first month of 2012, the civilian non-institutional population grew by an additional 2,651,000, yet the labor force further declined by 132,000, resulting in an additional 2,783,000 persons counted as not part of the labor force. Although January data is, as always, affected by changes in population controls, nevertheless it is what it is. Thus another 2.8 million Americans went MIA.

In effect, there have been no new entrants to the labor force in the past three years and one month, as 802,000 existing workers have dropped out of the workforce, and all 8,481,000 potential new entrants have fallen by the wayside. In all, that’s a total of 9.3 million workers who have effectively been pushed out of the labor force. For those paying attention, that’s a total of 8,373,000 persons who are not included in yesterday’s official unemployment calculation (9,283,000 less a seasonal adjustment of 910,000).

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official unemployment rate through January 2012 is 8.3%, as calculated in the table below, where:

[ (A) Total Unemployed / (B) Labor Force = (C) Unemployment Rate ]

However, if we were to add back the 8,373,000 workers who have effectively dropped out of the labor force, during Obama’s reign of misery, the real unemployment rate would be 13.0%, as calculated in the following table.

Even if only 55.0% of those who have been incontestably and wrongfully removed from the labor force were counted, which would be consistent with the eight-year average prior to Obama, the real unemployment rate would be 10.9%, not 8.3%. Eventually the majority of these 9.3 million working age Americans will start looking for work, and if upon entering the labor force, they are unable to find gainful employment, the unemployment rate should begin to rise towards its true rate, which would be between 10.9% and 13.0%, as stated.

Conclusion: In going all the way back to the year 1929, besides the years 2009, 2010, 2011, and potentially 2012, the only other years that the United States has ever suffered annual declines in its civilian labor force were 1943, 1944, 1945, and 1951. And as far as the 6.5 million who dropped out of the labor force entirely, over the past three years (not including 2012), that represents the worst consecutive 36 month period in United States history, also dating back to 1929. Since we are not presently engaged in a World War, with millions being drafted out of the civilian workforce, and with millions being killed in action, isn’t this proof positive that the unemployment rate is being manipulated?

Based upon the facts, the Great Recession never really ended, and the unemployment rate has been manipulated. I am 99.9% certain that the Obama Administration is playing with unemployment.

Prerequisites: Manipulation 101: The Real Unemployment Rate

** Updated on 2/7/2012 & 2/10/2012!

Manipulation 101: The Real Unemployment Rate

January 15, 2012August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 10 Comments

* Fake it until you make it. *

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

The following passage is from my last post, “Labor Force Contraction with Obama – And other hidden truths” :

“Most of the electorate understands that as the size of the labor force shrinks the unemployment rate declines. But is anyone really paying attention? Since this massive decline in the civilian labor force is a verifiable fact, it’s not surprising that the Obama Administration and much of the propagandist media have chosen to ignore it.”

Okay, I confess that I was begging the question. I am fully aware that most of the population doesn’t have a clue as to how the unemployment rate is calculated, and that a healthy subset could probably care less. So in this post I will explain in more detail how, as the size of the labor force contracts, the official unemployment rate declines.

First, here are a few key definitions, which are shown in more detail at the bottom of this post.

The term “non-institutional civilian population” includes persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
The term “labor force” includes all persons, in the non-institutional civilian population, classified as employed or unemployed.
And the term “not in labor force” includes persons aged 16 years and older, in the civilian non-institutional population, who are neither employed nor unemployed.

The table above shows the number of Americans counted as part of the labor force, from 2001 through 2011. It does not include those considered, “not in labor force”. You can see that during Bush’s first three years in office, although the economy was in recession, the labor force grew by 2,929,000 (on a seasonally adjusted basis). In contrast, the labor force has contracted by 739,000 during Obama’s first three years.

The dilemma posed by a declining labor force is that the non-institutional civilian population has continued to grow by approximately 1.1% each year. So in reality, the labor force didn’t only decline by 739,000 workers over the last three years (on a seasonally adjusted basis), but rather a total of 6.5 million workers dropped out (on a non-adjusted basis). What this means is that a smaller proportion of the populace is working to support a much larger cluster of retirees, unemployed, and those who have dropped out of the labor force.

As you can see, the labor force grew from 143,800,000 at the end of January 2001, to 154,626,000 by December of 2008, for an increase of 10,826,000 workers over the eight-year period immediately preceding Obama. The labor force was expanding by an annual average of 1,353,250 new entrants prior to 2009. But since January of 2009, the labor force has declined by an average of -246,333 workers per year. However, in the macro sense, the real employment situation is dramatically worse.

When the declining labor force is compared with growth of the civilian non-institutional population, as shown in the table below, it is clear that a total of 6.5 million Americans have dropped out of the labor force during Obama’s three years in office. This is the sum of the amounts highlighted in yellow (below). It is the difference between annual changes in the civilian non-institutional population, minus annual changes in the labor force. It represents the annual increase in the working age population, who are not being counted as part of the labor force.

For example, in 2009, the civilian non-institutional population grew by 2,013,000, yet the labor force declined by 145,000, resulting in 2,158,000 persons who should have, but did not enter the labor force. In effect, they dropped out. In 2010, the civilian non-institutional population grew by 2,029,000, yet the labor force declined by 253,000, resulting in 2,282,000 more persons who should have, but did not enter the labor force. Then in 2011, the civilian non-institutional population grew by 1,788,000, yet the labor force declined by another 272,000, resulting in 2,060,000 more persons who should have, but did not enter the labor force.

In effect, there have been no new entrants to the labor force in the past three years, as 670,000 existing workers dropped out (on an unadjusted basis), and all 5,830,000 potential new entrants fell by the wayside. Overall, 6.5 million working age persons have dropped out of the labor force under Obama. Is this change you can believe in?

The massive decline of new entrants to the labor force, which is shown in the table above, and graphically in the chart at the top, directly impacts the unemployment rate, making the employment situation appear better than it actually is. How so?

First, we must understand how the unemployment rate is calculated. The unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed persons by the size of the labor force:

[ (A) Total Unemployed / (B) Labor Force = (C) Unemployment Rate ]

Thus, the official unemployment rate of 8.5%, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the January 6, 2012, Employment Situation Report, is calculated as follows:

[ 13,097,000 / 153,887,000 = 8.5% ]

What this means is that, at the end of the year 2011, 13,097,000 persons were officially unemployed, out of a labor force totaling 153,887,000. And so 13,097,000 divided by 153,887,000 equals the unemployment rate of 8.5%. So how could this result have been manipulated? Why, that’s easy.

Manipulation 101

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” ~ Mark Twain

First of all, it is a fact that not everyone who is actually unemployed is officially counted as such. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, millions of Americans of working age, who are not working, are excluded from the official calculation.

Mathematically, what this means is that they have been removed from both the numerator and denominator of the equation (i.e. from both the number of unemployed and size of the labor force). Those eliminated from the official unemployment equation are classified as, “Not in the Labor Force.”

A subset of those not included in the labor force is referred to as “marginally attached”. The marginally attached are persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached.

When it comes to manipulating the unemployment rate, the main question is: What happens when an equal number of persons are subtracted from both the number of unemployed and the labor force? To answer this, let’s look at an example in the table below.

Starting in the middle of the chart, let’s assume that there are 14,000,000 unemployed persons out of a labor force totaling 140,000,000. That would make the unemployment rate 10.0%. Are you with me so far?

Now, let’s remove 3,000,000, from the labor force, and see what happens. Moving one column to the left, you will note that the unemployment rate falls to 8.0%, or by 2.0 percentage points, as 3,000,000 people are removed. That’s a decline of 20%. Wow! That was easy.

If we were to remove 10,000,000 from the labor force, we would get an even more dramatic result. Moving two columns left of center; you will notice that the unemployment rate falls even farther, to 3.1%, or by 6.9 percentage points, as 10,000,000 people are removed. That’s a decline of 69.0%.

Just to add some perspective, it works both ways. Moving one column to the right, you can see that the addition of 3,000,000 to the labor force causes the unemployment rate to rise to 11.9%, or by 1.9 percentage points (an increase of 19.0%). And finally, the addition of 10,000,000 to the labor force causes the unemployment rate to rise by 6.0 percentage points, or to 16.0% (an increase of 60.0%).

So it may be stated that, the act of removing workers from the labor force causes the unemployment rate to decline. It is also evident that an expanding labor force, in which new workers are unable to find work, should cause the unemployment rate to rise. Another fact is that classifying more workers as “not in the labor force” causes a greater percentage decline in the unemployment rate, than the percentage increase realized by allowing a natural expansion of the labor force. Got it?

Therefore, when the unemployment rate is higher than desired, all one has to do is remove a few million workers from the labor force, and voilà, “We are moving in the right direction.”

Now I’m not necessarily saying that the Obama Administration purposefully manipulated the unemployment rate, but since the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a governmental agency, run by a presidential appointee, it’s highly probable. I’m just saying that I no longer have faith in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ ability to remain impartial. Perhaps going forward the functions of this agency, as well as others, should be factored out to private non-partisan concerns.

What’s the real unemployment rate?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) itself admits that among those it has subtracted from a labor force, several million actually want to work. So I ask you this, If an individual is not working, but desires to have a job, is he (or she) not essentially unemployed? I say, “Yes”, but the BLS says, “No”. So is this a material issue, or is it diminimus? In other words, how many people are we really talking about?

Well, let’s turn to Bureau of Labor Statistics – Table A-38, Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex (below). To be precise, as far as BLS methodology goes, as of December 31, 2011, a staggering 87,212,000 working age Americans were not counted as part of the labor force. Among these, it is reported that 81,077,000 do not want a job, and that another 6,135,000 actually want to work.

To reiterate, in my book, if someone wants a job and doesn’t have one, that person is unemployed and should be counted as such. What’s the point of calculating an unemployment rate, which doesn’t include all persons who are unemployed?

Regarding those included or excluded from the labor force, here are a couple of important items to note:

First of all, the BLS only surveys around 60,000 households per month in order to come up with these figures. So as far as we know, the number of unemployed persons who want to work, but are not counted as part of the labor force, could be much greater than what’s being reported.
Secondly, according to Footnote No. 1, in Table A-38 (above), not everyone reported as wanting or not wanting to work is asked. Wait, so not everyone is asked? You know the old saying, “Never assume.”

So, in light of the fine print, the entire sampling outcome is at best grossly inaccurate, and at worst subject to outright manipulation.

From Table A-38, we can see that 6,135,000 workers, not counted as part of the labor force, actually want to work. So what would happen if we added them back into the labor force? Well, let’s run it and see.

In the table below, when the 6,135,000 workers are added back to the labor force, and rightfully counted as unemployed, the unemployment rate jumps from 8.5% to 12.0% (an increase of 41.2%). Is a deviation of 41.2% of material importance? I would think so.

I would contend, that based on BLS data, the true unemployment rate is closer to 12.0%. But at the same time, since only a small sample is surveyed, who’s to say that a large portion of the other 81,077,000 working age individuals, not counted as part of the labor force, don’t want jobs? Did anyone bother to ask them? No. So the actual unemployment rate could easily be much greater than 12.0%. Are you still with me?

In the table below, I have calculated the maximum unemployment rate. That is to say, what it would be if all 87,212,000 working age individuals, not presently included as part of the labor force, were included. When we count them all, the maximum unemployment rate jumps to 41.6%.

You laugh? Well, I’m not laughing. So, based on information published by the federal government, the actual unemployment rate is somewhere between 12.0% and 41.6%. That leaves a lot of room for play, as the lowest the rate can possibly go is 0.0%, and the highest 41.6%. [By the way, the maximum rate doesn’t include those considered to be employed who, for all practical purposes, really aren’t (see the definition of “Employed”, below).]

Disregarding the Bureau of Labor Statistics sampling assumptions, the methodology of which you may find at http://www.bls.gov/, for all we know, a larger segment of the population is becoming homeless, generationally dependent, or permanently unemployable. I believe that there are several million more unemployed Americans, who want to work, than we are being told.

In my entire life-time, neither the Bureau of Labor Statistics nor the Census Bureau has ever called upon me to participate in one of these monthly, 60,000 household employment surveys. So who are they calling? How can they call someone who doesn’t have a phone? Where do these numbers really come from? From what I can tell, that’s classified information. Have they ever called you?

So while Obama tells us on the one hand, “We’re making progress,” in reality, all that’s happened is that a larger segment of society has given up any hope of ever having a job. Based upon the job killing policies of his Administration, I would say this is more likely to be the case today, than at any time in U.S. history. So this is progress? And now Obama wants another term to, “finish the job.” I think we’re already finished; the baby boom implosion will take care of the rest.

The Bottom Line: The official unemployment rate is misleading, and can be easily manipulated. By simply removing two or three million persons from the labor force (a little here, a little there), one can easily trim a couple of percentage points off of the official unemployment rate, and then declare that the economy is improving.

Since the beginning of 2009, the net result of Obama’s anti-success rhetoric, coupled with the most reckless deficit-spending record in U.S. history, has been an increase of 6.5 million workers who are no longer counted as part of the labor force. And on top of this, the economy has lost 1.7 million jobs, since February of 2009. The real unemployment rate isn’t 8.5%, it’s somewhere between 12.0% and 41.6%, perhaps even higher, depending upon one’s perspective.

In light of this reality, I find Obama’s statement, “We are moving in the right direction,” to be most absurd. Come on man! But on the brighter side, there is a tremendous opportunity for a new Administration to step in, in 2013, and show the Socialists, Progressives, and Communists who have taken over the Democratic Party, and the delusional fakers and wannabe’s in the White House, who are on their way out of power, what the “right” direction genuinely looks like. Godspeed!

Definitions:

Labor force (Current Population Survey) – The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.
Civilian non-institutional population (Current Population Survey) – Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
Employed persons (Current Population Survey) – Persons 16 years and over in the civilian non-institutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.
Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey) – Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey) – Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian non-institutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. (See Marginally Attached Workers.)
Marginally Attached Workers (Current Population Survey) – Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. (See Discouraged Workers.)
Discouraged Workers (Current Population Survey) – Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.

Link to Chart Data: Google Docs

Charts: Unemployment Rate vs. Size of Labor Force

January 8, 2012August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / Leave a comment

– Courtesy of Liberty Works

* The following charts track the unemployment rate and the size of the labor force. *

The chart above shows that over the first 25 months of the current recovery the unemployment rate has declined from 10.1% to 8.5% while the size of the labor force is virtually unchanged even though the working age population has grown.

Since the beginning of 2008 the working age population has grown by 7.2 million people. Yet the labor force which is normally about two-thirds of the working age population has shrunk over the same period by 49,000.

Thus, 4.8 million men and women who should be included in the unemployment rate calculation as both in the labor force and unemployed are not counted at all because they have become too discouraged to look for jobs.

If those men and women were included in the unemployment rate calculation the December rate would have been 11.3%, higher than any time since 1940.

The second chart above tracks the first 25 months of the Reagan recovery of the 1980s. President Reagan inherited a sick economy and a deep recession that by most measures was worse than what President Obama inherited. As the chart shows, the unemployment rate soared even higher but then there was a steep drop even as the labor force grew by 4.3 million! People did not give up looking for jobs during the Reagan boom because there was robust growth in the economy and employers were creating hundreds of thousands of jobs every month.

[…]

There is a potential downside that could blow up Obama’s propaganda campaign. If the “good news” about the unemployment rate encourages several million people to come back into the labor force and seek jobs, the number officially classified as “unemployed” will increase and the unemployment rate will tick back up as the November election approaches.

Read the full story at – Liberty Works

Labor Force Contraction with Obama

January 7, 2012August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 4 Comments

– And other hidden truths

– By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

On January 7, 2012, Barack Obama boasted, “We’re moving in the right direction. We have made real progress.” Then he went on to exaggerate that, “Altogether more private sector jobs were created in 2011 than any year since 2005.” Naturally, such jovial assertions propelled many left-wing moonbats back to work today, if you can call blogging false claims such as that ‘Obama created more jobs in one year than Bush did in eight’, and other malarkey, work. It’s funny that these same cherry-pickers never attempt to match wits when it comes to the national debt. We all know that Obama has borrowed $1.0 trillion more in 3 years, than Bush did in eight, but I digress. So let’s examine Obama’s latest victory on the jobs front, for what it really represents.

Are we heading in the right direction?

To find out, we took a closer look at the official data published yesterday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). According to Table B-1, Establishment Data, the American economy has lost a total of -569,000 non-farm jobs since January of 2001. So in terms of jobs growth, what is factual is that not one new net job has been realized over the last 11 years (see table below). So are we headed in the right direction? I am reminded of a quote from the movie “2012” – “When they tell you not to panic, that’s when you run.”

Zooming in a little closer, we can see that -1,663,000 jobs have been lost since February of 2009, the month after Obama’s inauguration (see table below). So although 1,640,000 jobs were gained in the year 2011, and 940,000 in 2010, long forgotten by Obama are the -4,243,000 jobs that were lost during his first year in office. Granted, the fact that the economy is no longer losing jobs is a good thing, but it doesn’t necessarily mean we are heading in the right direction. One would have to examine a number of other factors in order to make that affirmation, such as the recent downgrade to the U.S.A.’s credit rating, and the 333% growth in government debt over Obama’s first three years.

By comparison, George W. Bush, who also inherited a recession from his predecessor, suffered total job losses of -2,199,000 by the end of his third year in office (see table below), while Obama lost -1,663,000 during his first three years (see table above).

So for starters, it is incorrect to state that any jobs have been created since Obama became president, because net jobs have been lost (not gained). Therefore, a more fair and balanced statement would be that, ‘during their first three years in office, Obama lost -536,000 fewer jobs than Bush’. Now as far as I’m concerned, that’s hardly worth breaking out the caviar and champagne. What it really means is that in comparing both presidents up to this point in their terms, Obama is less of a loser than Bush. But two losers don’t make a winner.

Were more jobs created in 2011 than in any year since 2005?

Next, since Obama remarked that ‘more jobs were created in the year 2011 than in any year since 2005’, we must verify his claim. Actually this is not true, as you can see in the table below. The facts show that in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 the economy produced total jobs growth of 2,047,000, 2,496,000, 2,078,000, and 1,092,000 jobs, respectively. So although it may have been correct to state that more net jobs were realized in 2011 than in any year since 2006, because 2,078,000 were realized in 2006, while 1,092,000 were attained in 2007, versus 1,640,000 in 2011, pulling the year 2005 out of a hat was a stretch.

“It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place”. ~ Henry Louis Mencken

Aside from twisting the truth, all that this really means is that fewer net jobs were realized in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 than in 2011. So what? The recession officially ended in June of 2009, and now finally, two and a half years later, Obama beat what are essentially recessionary benchmarks. Congratulations! But what about the -3,600,000 jobs that were lost in 2008? And the -5,063,000 that were lost in 2009? It’s as if a tiny accomplishment, cherry-picked from an arbitrary year, isolated from the rest of recent history, has the power of changing that very history. Sure thing chief!

In the end, over Bush’s eight-year term, from February of 2001 through January of 2009, a total of 1,094,000 net jobs were realized; while during Obama’s first three years in office, from February of 2009 through December of 2011, a total of -1,663,000 net jobs have been lost. So that means Obama must gain another 2,757,000 jobs before his left-wing moonbats can boast of even equaling what they consider to be the miniscule accomplishment of George W. Bush. Good luck with that, since you’ve got less than 12 months to get there.

Omitting Marginally Attached and Discouraged Workers

Now we will turn attention to the unemployed, and the uncounted, marginally attached and discouraged workers. You will note in the data from BLS Table A-15, Alternative Measures of Labor Utilization, (below) that during Bush’s first three recessionary years, the percentage of unemployed, plus marginally attached and discouraged workers averaged between 5.6% and 7.0%. You can also see that during Obama’s first three years, the rate has jumped to an average of between 10.5% and 11.0%. In fact, as of December 31, 2011, a larger percentage of Americans are unemployed, discouraged, or marginally attached to the labor force than at anytime since 1994 (when the statistic was first measured). So does this hidden fact somehow back up the words, “we are moving in the right direction”? Only if the direction Obama is espousing entails enslaving millions more to lives of perpetual government dependency. We’ve seen brighter mornings.

The Shrinking Labor Force

Finally, the data from BLS Table A-1, Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Sex and Age, (below) shows the number of Americans counted as part of the civilian labor force, from 2001 through 2011. We can see that during Bush’s first three years, the civilian labor force grew by 2,929,000. In contrast, the labor force has contracted by -739,000 during Obama’s first three years. So is this good, or bad? Well, since the population is growing by 1.2% each year, a contracting labor force means that a smaller proportion of the populace is working to support a larger group of retirees, unemployed, and those who have dropped out of the labor force. So I would say this isn’t exactly “morning in America”.

As you can see, the labor force grew from 143,800,000 at the end of January 2001, to 154,236,000 by January of 2009, for an increase of 10,436,000 workers over the eight-year period immediately preceding Obama. So while the labor force was expanding by an annual average of 1,304,500 new entrants before Obama, it has suddenly declined by an average of -246,333 workers per year since January of 2009. So as Obama has been out golfing, vacationing and as he now celebrates his grand achievement, better than 1,000,000 Americans have fallen through the cracks during each of his three years in office. These are either not working, not currently looking for work, or have permanently given up looking. They are not counted in the official December unemployment rate.

Most of the electorate understands that as the size of the labor force shrinks, the unemployment rate declines. But is anyone really paying attention? Since this massive decline in the civilian labor force is a verifiable fact, it’s not surprising that the Obama Administration, and much of the propagandist media have chosen to ignore it.

The Bottom Line: Obama has lost a total of -1,633,000 net jobs since he entered office. Not one new net job has been gained since the year 2007. The percentage of unemployed, plus marginally attached and discouraged workers stands at 10.5% as of December 2011, versus an average of 5.5% to 7.0% during the prior eight years. The civilian labor force has contracted by -739,000 workers since January of 2009, for an average loss of -246,333 per year, versus average growth of 1,304,500 per year in the eight years prior to Obama. So perhaps, Obama’s latest fabrication isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Related:

Obama’s lost labor force – NetRight Daily

Civilian Employment to Population Ratio Lowest Since Carter / Early Reagan … And Flat-lined! Employment Misery Index Increasing! – Confounded Interest

So Now, It’s ‘Recovery Winter’!! – Joshua Pundit

Obama’s Fraudulent Unemployment Rate – Liberty Works