tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post7404400732671457894..comments2023-11-02T06:44:25.146-05:00Comments on Molly's Middle America: How Many People Are Fired Each Year in the United States? (Early 2017 update)Middle Mollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11441441493867436577noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post-89475098705779003052017-09-01T05:04:31.519-05:002017-09-01T05:04:31.519-05:00"You continue to pick very few positive stats..."You continue to pick very few positive stats to fool the readers--selecting just the stats from the year 2016, etc. You really should take GDP stats over several years into account, not just monthly job openings data during just the recovery period." Looking at averages is very tricky. Obama inherited the worst economy in 80 years and it took us several years to dig ourselves out of the horrible recession. We can compare the economy at the end of Obama's tenure with where the economy was at the beginning of Obama's tenure, but why would you use an average when things were so bad in 2008-2009 even into 2010 and 2011?Middle Mollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11441441493867436577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post-76591760267544952802017-09-01T05:02:01.869-05:002017-09-01T05:02:01.869-05:00Where do you get your information? Faux news? Th...Where do you get your information? Faux news? The rightie blogs?<br />You wrote: "Did you know under Obama only 74% of the prime working age participate in the labour force. Today, under Trump, it is at about 78.5%. The gdp and wage growth was terrible under Obama also." First, wage growth was NOT terrible under Obama. Look at the BLS CES050000031 chart. It shows that we FINALLY started to see a solid increase in inflation-adjusted wages for "regular" workers in about 2014. We are now back to where we were (in inflation-adjusted wages) in 1979, back before years of Reagan/Bush I economics. Inflation-adjusted wages hit a nadir in the late Bush I years, then climbed during the Clinton years, meandered during the Bush II and recession years, and finally started to go back up during Obama's second term. We are still in an Obama economy, and wages and jobs numbers are still going up. <br /><br />You seem to claim that the employment participation of prime-aged workers has gone up 4% in the few months since Trump took office. Of course, that is not true. A year ago it was 78%, now it is 78.7%. The employment participation rate has been climbing slowly over the last several years, though it has been relatively stationary over the past 1-2 years. Middle Mollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11441441493867436577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post-6915878511928426752017-09-01T04:46:03.560-05:002017-09-01T04:46:03.560-05:00Thank you for the link to the CNN article. Believ...Thank you for the link to the CNN article. Believe it or not, but the CNN writer got a few things wrong in terms of how we calculate jobs numbers. If there is an email address, I will send her a correction. The issue is the number of people looking for full-time jobs. She assumes that all unemployed people are looking for full-time jobs; that is not true. She assumes that all people marginally attached to the labor force are looking for full-time jobs; that is also not true. In April (the article was written in early May, there were 5.6 people million unemployed and looking for full-time work and 5.2 million people working part-time but wanting full-time work. That's 10.8 million people who want full-time work, not the 14.4 "in need of a full-time job". The marginally attached people really cannot be counted. They haven't looked for work because they are ill, they have family responsibilities, they are in school or they are "not available to work now". It's wrong to assume that these people want full-time jobs.Middle Mollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11441441493867436577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post-45045418448134362542017-09-01T04:23:28.737-05:002017-09-01T04:23:28.737-05:00Job openings are not broken down by age as we don&...Job openings are not broken down by age as we don't know how old someone is until someone is hired. I understand what you are saying, but coming up with a rate for prime-aged workers, but older and younger workers look for work as well. Hirings, layoffs, quits are not broken down by age. You can easily calculate some kind of rate, but you'd be using a number of job openings divided by a number of workers. It's not really the same. <br /><br />The number of job openings was much lower in the recession years of 2008 to about 2012. We averaged 2.4 million job openings a month in 2009; 3.2 in 2011 and 3.9 million job openings in 2013. <br /><br />Yes, there is a RATE of job openings, the percentage of job openings relative to the total number of jobs, so we don't look at age of workers when calculating the rate. The Rate was 2.3 to 2.7 in 2003-2004. The rate was 3.0 to 3.4 in 2006 and 2007, then down to 1.7 and 1.8 in 2009, and then it started back up. In 2015 through 17, that rate has been the highest EVER, ranging from 3.5 to 4.0. Middle Mollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11441441493867436577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post-11148589599455336372017-05-30T10:06:18.622-05:002017-05-30T10:06:18.622-05:00"In terms of job openings, we only have data ..."In terms of job openings, we only have data going back 15 years. The highest monthly averages in terms of job OPENINGS occurred in 2016, with an average of 5.7 million job openings a month. During the recovery of 2003-2007, we got up to an average of 4.5 million job openings a month in 2007."<br /><br />Only 2016? What is the average job openings between 2009-2016? So it is 5.7 mil. out of how many people in the prime working age group (25 to 54 years)? The prime working age group is a lot smaller in 2003, don't you think? It would be more accurate to use percentage of job openings / total americans in the prime working age group over at least 5 years (eg 2003-2007).<br /><br />You continue to pick very few positive stats to fool the readers--selecting just the stats from the year 2016, etc. You really should take GDP stats over several years into account, not just monthly job openings data during just the recovery period.<br /><br />Did you know under Obama only 74% of the prime working age participate in the labour force. Today, under Trump, it is at about 78.5%. The gdp and wage growth was terrible under Obama also.<br /><br />http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/03/news/economy/trump-us-full-employment/index.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com