Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-01-2022, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Southeast US
8,609 posts, read 2,336,491 times
Reputation: 2114

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy View Post
To answer you questions, the free market dictates these things, not you. This isn’t Soviet Russia.
oh, of course.

I'm not worried about McD's or Wal-Mart having trouble hiring the same # of folks as 2019 between minimum wage and $20/hour. I don't have to go to either for my "fix". I can drive another 5 minutes or pay a buck extra for my occasional fast food lunch.

I'm just agreeing with why we don't need as many many low-wage workers as some folks say. I'm agreeing that no one should think they can live alone or "support a family" at 35 hours/week in a low-wage job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-01-2022, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Southeast US
8,609 posts, read 2,336,491 times
Reputation: 2114
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Another thing that has been pointed out more than once in the forum is that initial claims for unemployment insurance (the subject of this thread) measure the rate of layoffs, not the unemployment rate. So yes, it is indeed a "good" thing because a falling number of initial unemployment claims means fewer people are getting laid off.
on this point, you're correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2022, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Southeast US
8,609 posts, read 2,336,491 times
Reputation: 2114
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
And FWIW, no, we are no longer losing people from the labor force. Since Feb (Biden's first full month), the size of the US labor force has risen from 160,211,000 to 162,052,000. That's about 1.8 million:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLF16OV
how does it compare to 24 months ago though?

oh wait - the chart tells us. It's ~2.5MM fewer people in the workforce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2022, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,922 posts, read 24,076,813 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee View Post
how does it compare to 24 months ago though?

oh wait - the chart tells us. It's ~2.5MM fewer people in the workforce.
Of course we have fewer people. Some companies are mandating vaccines. Other companies are limiting how many people they hire due to COVID restrictions. Some businesses completely shutdown (mostly smaller companies, though some national chains have too.) The other side is people don't want to work. Maybe their employer is low-balling them. Maybe childcare is too expensive for them. Maybe they rather work at home and their employer doesn't want to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2022, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Southeast US
8,609 posts, read 2,336,491 times
Reputation: 2114
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Of course we have fewer people. Some companies are mandating vaccines. Other companies are limiting how many people they hire due to COVID restrictions. Some businesses completely shutdown (mostly smaller companies, though some national chains have too.) The other side is people don't want to work. Maybe their employer is low-balling them. Maybe childcare is too expensive for them. Maybe they rather work at home and their employer doesn't want to.
you're getting confused about the LFPR - Labor Force Participation Rate.

Everyone that is of working age (16-65) either employed or looking for work is in that #.

Anybody that doesn't "want to work" - for any of a myriad of reasons including those you stated - is not in the figures being discussed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2022, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,922 posts, read 24,076,813 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee View Post
you're getting confused about the LFPR - Labor Force Participation Rate.

Everyone that is of working age (16-65) either employed or looking for work is in that #.

Anybody that doesn't "want to work" - for any of a myriad of reasons including those you stated - is not in the figures being discussed.
It is often when we bring up the whole "the US economy isn't good" comments by Republicans. Especially with the last two Democrat presidents. That is the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2022, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
21,024 posts, read 9,743,776 times
Reputation: 15843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee View Post
how does it compare to 24 months ago though?

oh wait - the chart tells us. It's ~2.5MM fewer people in the workforce.
It's headed in the right direction this year. They're not going to come back into the workforce all at once.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2022, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,922 posts, read 24,076,813 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
It's headed in the right direction this year. They're not going to come back into the workforce all at once.
The labor force hardly ever sees employment come as quickly as unemployment happens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2022, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,656 posts, read 16,701,712 times
Reputation: 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee View Post
how does it compare to 24 months ago though?

oh wait - the chart tells us. It's ~2.5MM fewer people in the workforce.

LFPR is based on the population overall, not workers, so idk why people even use it.

68 year old who retired because it just didnt make sense to keep working during a pandemic shouldnt be used in a political argument.


The U6 unemployment rate is 7.8..... It was 6.8 in December of 2019
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top