The results of Obamanomics

[WillK]

...
First, the “Not Seasonally Adjusted” Civilian Labor force shrank from 153,022,000 in March to 152,898,000 in April for all persons 16 years and over!

Second, the Civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years and older increased from 239,000,000 in March to 239,146,000 in April.

Now, to rational people, that’s a really odd divergence.  

Is it?  Have you checked with a rational person?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The labor force declined in previous reporting periods so why would "most" people have expected it to increase in this one?

[WillK]

...
First, the “Not Seasonally Adjusted” Civilian Labor force shrank from 153,022,000 in March to 152,898,000 in April for all persons 16 years and over!

Second, the Civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years and older increased from 239,000,000 in March to 239,146,000 in April.

Now, to rational people, that’s a really odd divergence.  

Is it?  Have you checked with a rational person?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The labor force declined in previous reporting periods so why would "most" people have expected it to increase in this one?

Are you really that dense?!?

Not at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have taken several economics courses. 

As a rational, overly-educated person, I don't find a slight divergence in the trend of the labor force and the population to be at all odd.  Considering some of what I know about demographic and economic trends, a divergence is expected.

[WillK]

As can be clearly seen, the growth in the civilian noninstitutional population is what we should expect, but, the civilian labor force has been shrinking under Obama (NOT JUST ONE MONTH)!

Anyone educated in economics and demographics could predict that the civilian labor force would be about level this year regardless of who was president. Add in the slow recovery from a deep recession and it makes total sense to see a 1% drop in the size over the labor force since 2008.   

Maybe you are the one who needs to take some courses. 
Some reading to get you started:

• A Forbes article from 2005 predicting that the size of the US workforce will level off by 2010 (without knowing there would be a recession or Obama): 
  http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/28/career-babyboomer-work-cx_sr_0929bizbasics.html
  
• A more recent Business Week article addressing the same subject:
  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-07/aging-baby-boomers-reduce-jobless-rate-matus-says.html
  

 

[WillK]

The three categories aggregate difference amounts to 2,849,000.  So, if we are to believe the adjustment bureau, the reduction in the civilian labor force is NOT some demographic driven factor as you suggest.

Looking at the data you presented a few posts ago, there has been a 4,111,000 increase in the Civilian noninstitutional population (16+)  and a 1,451,000 decrease in the Civilian Labor Force.   That means that the Civilian population Not in the Labor Force has increased by 5,562,000.   

Yet the three categories you mentioned above only add up to 2,849,000.  So how are you going to explain the other 2,713,000 added to the population Not in the labor force?   

[WillK]

The three categories aggregate difference amounts to 2,849,000.  So, if we are to believe the adjustment bureau, the reduction in the civilian labor force is NOT some demographic driven factor as you suggest.

Looking at the data you presented a few posts ago, there has been a 4,111,000 increase in the Civilian noninstitutional population (16+)  and a 1,451,000 decrease in the Civilian Labor Force.   That means that the Civilian population Not in the Labor Force has increased by 5,562,000.   

Yet the three categories you mentioned above only add up to 2,849,000.  So how are you going to explain the other 2,713,000 added to the population Not in the labor force?   

Will,

You really should read more carefully.

As I noted, "if you believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics."

To put it in simpler terms, I don't believe the BLS numbers, but rather presented them as even they disagree with you assertion that the drop in the Civilian Labor Force is some kind of foreordained matter.

Actually, as presented, they did agree with my assertion, as I pointed out.

Our back and forth started becuase you claimed that a rational person would not expect there to be any drop in the labor force.  However, as I point out with links, a leveling off and likely drop in the labor force was being predicted years ago. 
 

[WillK]

Well, CitizenX,first, its nice to see an Obama supporter openly being happy about rising food costs.

Second, don't know of any "greedy mistake" I supposedly made for Obama to fix.  I'll just put that down to your ignorance.

Bush starts a war and sends gas prices into the stratosphere.  

Thanks for bringing up the gas prices matter.

Here's a comparison:

5/302011     $3.794
1/19/2009      1.832

http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html

So, gasoline prices are more than double what they were under Bush.

Hmm.

Try comparing May 2008 with May 2011.

hhhmmmmm. 

[WillK]

First, there is NO SUCH THING as a "healthy level of inflation"!!!   There is merely bad inflation and worse inflation.  That you are in favor of inflation is no suprise.  You are really strange.

So you think 0% Inflation is the only good way to be?   
Talk about strange!