***Biden wins presidency-Boy are we toast***

[yuneeq]

No I am showing your statement is not always true. Stating facts is not moving the goalposts.

UI claims are historically low, UI rate continues to go down every month. Now all of a sudden, we are talking about workforce participation that I never heard about before.

Yes, goalposts are being moved but not by me. 

You never heard of labor participation rate before? And in an environment where people aren’t encouraged to look for a job, it’s not something you think is worth looking into?

[CountValentine]

You never heard of labor participation rate before? And in an environment where people aren’t encouraged to look for a job, it’s not something you think is worth looking into?

I don't recall it being brought up when talking about UI the last time around. Now that some of the figures are low and getting lower all of a sudden participation is brought up. I never used it discredit the UI numbers from the last admin and I am not going to do it now. I don't move the goalposts. Too bad the rest of you can't make the same claim. 

[aygart]

I never used it discredit the UI numbers from the last admin and I am not going to do it now.

This number was better then. Under GWB this number was used (not necessarily by you) to discredit UI numbers and rightly so. Under Obama this was used as well, but participation improved thereafter. The use of labor participation in interpreting unemployment numbers is very standard and I have heard it just about every single time I have heard an economist discuss them.
FTR, my position has been longstanding that presidents have very limited impact on short term economics.

[CountValentine]

This number was better then. Under GWB this number was used (not necessarily by you) to discredit UI numbers and rightly so. Under Obama this was used as well, but participation improved thereafter. The use of labor participation in interpreting unemployment numbers is very standard and I have heard it just about every single time I have heard an economist discuss them.
FTR, my position has been longstanding that presidents have very limited impact on short term economics.

I don't recall any discussions here that I have been part of using it.

The reason I say use goalposts is because everyone wants to bring in anything they can to twist the numbers.
As an example, if use the Dow as an indication on how well the stock market is doing it is cut and dry.

[aygart]

I don't recall any discussions here that I have been part of using it.

Some others definitely have used it, especially @yuneeq

https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=5531.msg1662838#msg1662838
https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=71949.msg1657471#msg1657471

[CountValentine]

Some others definitely have used it, especially @yuneeq

https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=5531.msg1662838#msg1662838
https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=71949.msg1657471#msg1657471

Yes I see "he" has used it in the past.
I am glad to see I am not the only one with goalposts as that JTZ guy has them to.

[aygart]

I am glad to see I am not the only one with goalposts as that JTZ guy has them to.

Yeah, he also took random items and called them goalposts.

If the unemployment rate goes down while the CLFPR stays the same that is a good sign. If it goes down while CLFPR goes down that is a bad sign depending on pace since the lower unemployment is not due to people finding jobs but rather due to people dropping out of the workforce. If it goes up while CLFPR goes up it can be neutral or even good if it goes up at a slower pace.

[yuneeq]

I don't recall any discussions here that I have been part of using it.

The reason I say use goalposts is because everyone wants to bring in anything they can to twist the numbers.
As an example, if use the Dow as an indication on how well the stock market is doing it is cut and dry.

You are convinced that the unemployment rate is all you need to know about the state of the job market, and ignoring various contextual stats that the Fed gives us (maybe let the Fed know they should stop moving the goalposts). Back to your stock market analogy, it’s like investing in a stock based on revenue alone, ignoring net profit, cash flow, etc. AAPL can sell $1000 gift cards for $50 to increase revenue, are you running to invest?

Everything needs to be understood in context, as @aygart succinctly explained.

[CountValentine]

You are all missing the point. Everyone likes to put their spin on everything. You need to agree on some baseline.

If the market is at all time high some will spin it as it is not factoring in this or that.

Now back to unemployment. Claims are at historic lows. Unemployment is trending down for the past year. These are the same goalposts I used for the last admin. Now if you want to argue why that is fine but I am not moving the goalposts.

[aygart]

BTW, CLFP has been relatively stable since Biden became president. This means that lower unemployment is a good sign.

[CountValentine]

BTW, CLFP has been relatively stable since Biden became president. This means that lower unemployment is a good sign.

Lower unemployment is a good sign.
GOALPOSTS baby!!! 

[aygart]

Lower unemployment with stable or growing participation is a good sign.

FTFY. Just the facts.

If unemployment as measured is down without a single person finding a job but rather because people gave up that is not a good sign.

[CountValentine]

If unemployment as measured is down without a single person finding a job but rather because people gave up that is not a good sign.

Low unemployment is good. High unemployment is bad.
Those are the goalposts. I have never moved them.

I can see the argument for last admin. Unemployment was low but that was bad because of low paying jobs. No, I don't play those games!!!

[yuneeq]

You are all missing the point. Everyone likes to put their spin on everything. You need to agree on some baseline.

If the market is at all time high some will spin it as it is not factoring in this or that.

Now back to unemployment. Claims are at historic lows. Unemployment is trending down for the past year. These are the same goalposts I used for the last admin. Now if you want to argue why that is fine but I am not moving the goalposts.

Low unemployment is good. High unemployment is bad.
Those are the goalposts. I have never moved them.

I can see the argument for last admin. Unemployment was low but that was bad because of low paying jobs. No, I don't play those games!!!

I think you are missing the point. Looking at 2 metrics isn't too difficult for most of us, just like most of us don't mistakenly equate "unemployment claims" with "unemployment" as you have done here. There is a strong job market and wage growth which is nice, however if you dealt with hiring or if you speak to any recruiters you would know that many people are not serious about working.

4.6% unemployment rate sounds good, but labor participation rate is still 1.7% lower than pre-COVID and it's important that we get these people back into the workforce. That 1.7% loss means 4.4m additional people are not looking for a job, or the equivalent of 7.1% unemployment rate in Feb 2020. Context is everything. I don't care about arbitrary goalposts because I'm not lazy nor a pundit.

[aygart]

I think you are missing the point. Looking at 2 metrics isn't too difficult for most of us, just like most of us don't mistakenly equate "unemployment claims" with "unemployment" as you have done here. There is a strong job market and wage growth which is nice, however if you dealt with hiring or if you speak to any recruiters you would know that many people are not serious about working.

4.6% unemployment rate sounds good, but labor participation rate is still 1.7% lower than pre-COVID and it's important that we get these people back into the workforce. That 1.7% loss means 4.4m additional people are not looking for a job, or the equivalent of 7.1% unemployment rate in Feb 2020. Context is everything. I don't care about arbitrary goalposts because I'm not lazy nor a pundit.

It is still a nice improvement ver where it had been.

[CountValentine]

I think you are missing the point. Looking at 2 metrics isn't too difficult for most of us, just like most of us don't mistakenly equate "unemployment claims" with "unemployment" as you have done here. There is a strong job market and wage growth which is nice, however if you dealt with hiring or if you speak to any recruiters you would know that many people are not serious about working.

4.6% unemployment rate sounds good, but labor participation rate is still 1.7% lower than pre-COVID and it's important that we get these people back into the workforce. That 1.7% loss means 4.4m additional people are not looking for a job, or the equivalent of 7.1% unemployment rate in Feb 2020. Context is everything. I don't care about arbitrary goalposts because I'm not lazy nor a pundit.

Actually looking at numerous metrics is not difficult for me. I am not equating unemployment claims with unemployment and that is why I separated the two.
I know you don't care about goalpost because you love to spin it your way. The 4.6 unemployment rate is good if not great but you are trying to spin it as being bad. Sorry, this is a no spin zone!!!

[savvydigz]

I think you are missing the point. Looking at 2 metrics isn't too difficult for most of us, just like most of us don't mistakenly equate "unemployment claims" with "unemployment" as you have done here. There is a strong job market and wage growth which is nice, however if you dealt with hiring or if you speak to any recruiters you would know that many people are not serious about working.

4.6% unemployment rate sounds good, but labor participation rate is still 1.7% lower than pre-COVID and it's important that we get these people back into the workforce. That 1.7% loss means 4.4m additional people are not looking for a job, or the equivalent of 7.1% unemployment rate in Feb 2020. Context is everything. I don't care about arbitrary goalposts because I'm not lazy nor a pundit.

What do you have from some minor wage growth if it can't keep up with inflation. Essentially you're seeing wage decreases across the board.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/2022-salary-increases-look-to-trail-inflation.aspx

[CountValentine]

Thank you Mr President!!!
https://www.dansdeals.com/points-travel/finally-passports-will-soon-renewable-online/

[yelped]

Thank you Mr President!!!
https://www.dansdeals.com/points-travel/finally-passports-will-soon-renewable-online/

Or Mr. President's puppet master. 

[aygart]

Or Mr. President's puppet master. 

No difference. You don't get to put them together for what you don't like and separate them for what you do.