Where does UI eligibility play into the definitions of CLF? I got them from the BLS website, but I'm willing to be persuaded if there is a more precise authority on point. There has to be some explanation, but those definitions don't get me there.
The NC GOP Recovery
- Thread starter jhmd2000
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Where does UI eligibility play into the definitions of CLF? I got them from the BLS website, but I'm willing to be persuaded if there is a more precise authority on point. There has to be some explanation, but those definitions don't get me there.
bmoneydeac
Butts - Jessica Biel's in particular
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Messages
- 19,154
- Reaction score
- 2,977
I get that you have to make job inquiries (and thereby be included in the CLF) to get UI. When the benefits ran out, these people quit making those job inquiries (removing them from CLF). I suppose some folks maybe decided to stay home with a kid or go back to school or something and just continued to get the benefits while they were eligible with no real intention on landing a job. Do you think that explains the entire drop? I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around how UI would be the thing keeping people in the labor force outside of pretty rare exceptions. As it's been pointed out in the past, with the exception of food stamps I believe all other cash transfers require some documented job hunting.
On second thought, I could see people going on disability after UI runs out monkeying with the numbers some. What else am I missing?
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
Most of the center-left economists and writers I pay attention to think UI is a big deal in tethering people to the labor force. I have no information on the breakdown of age or family income of the people leaving the labor force in NC so I won't hazard a guess as to that.
There's a big literature on disability that I'm not especially familiar with but ed glaeser's touched on it in the past.
There's a big literature on disability that I'm not especially familiar with but ed glaeser's touched on it in the past.
bmoneydeac
Butts - Jessica Biel's in particular
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Messages
- 19,154
- Reaction score
- 2,977
Thanks. I'm going to try to do some research when I get some time this afternoon but wasn't sure what you knew off hand. I'm just afraid there isn't (aren't?) good data out there.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,628
- Reaction score
- 22,649
People also take jobs off the books like babysitting, mowing lawns, handyman work, panhandling, any number of things.
The definition of insanity applies to the long term unemployed. Why keep looking for jobs that aren't there?
The definition of insanity applies to the long term unemployed. Why keep looking for jobs that aren't there?
...particularly when you can just stay on LTU, right?
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
The labor force is a number defined by people who are working or actively looking for work. If you are in the labor force you are either employed or unemployed. If you are not working and not looking for work you are not in the labor force. Unemployment rate is #unemployed divided by labor force. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment
If a bunch of unemployed people drop out of the labor force, the top and bottom numbers in that division problem will both change. Let's say, just for example, that there are 200,000 unemployed out of 1,000,000 labor force = unemployment rate of 20%. Obviously, this means that 800,000 people have jobs.
Just for illustration purposes, let's say that in one month 100,000 people, all unemployed, stop looking for work and no employed people retire or die. The calculation would change to 100,000/900,000 = 11%. There are still 800,000 employed people. The unemployment rate is cut nearly in half, but 0 jobs were created.
Now nothing that dramatic or clear cut happened in North Carolina. Clearly jobs have been created in North Carolina in the past several months and that's a great thing. It is also pretty clear that the labor force has declined, or at least has stagnated and certainly is not rising at the rate of some other states like California and Texas. Those numbers are open to examination and you can find alternative analysis on why. I simply googled "north carolina labor force and unemployment insurance" and got this page of results, you can all read more about it if you want to. https://www.google.com/search?q=north+carolina+labor+force+and+unemployment+insurance&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS504US504&oq=nor&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59j69i65l3j69i59.2048j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
That's the statistical side of it. The political side of it is Phil Berger wants to give himself the credit for all the jobs created, but doesn't want to take responsibility for the decline in the labor force (or even acknowledge that it exists). My personal take on it is that the NC GOP policies, especially those policies generally cited as "pro growth" such as slashing taxes on the wealthy and out-of-state corporations, have barely begun and it is disingenuous to give them credit for the jobs created. What is really happening is a general overall economic recovery, more jobs in every state, and a rising tide is lifting all the boats, Phil Berger's included.
I think it is equally disingenuous to pretend that ending UI benefits had no impact on labor force participation, since the definition of being in the labor force is "looking for work" and that is also a principal requirement for receiving UI. I don't think that the labor force decline can be pinned completely on the end of UI benefits - NC has an aging population and a lot of rural areas without opportunity and I think that has a significant impact on the situation as well. Scholars will probably write papers for a few years trying to hash that out since it is (obviously) a political football.
If a bunch of unemployed people drop out of the labor force, the top and bottom numbers in that division problem will both change. Let's say, just for example, that there are 200,000 unemployed out of 1,000,000 labor force = unemployment rate of 20%. Obviously, this means that 800,000 people have jobs.
Just for illustration purposes, let's say that in one month 100,000 people, all unemployed, stop looking for work and no employed people retire or die. The calculation would change to 100,000/900,000 = 11%. There are still 800,000 employed people. The unemployment rate is cut nearly in half, but 0 jobs were created.
Now nothing that dramatic or clear cut happened in North Carolina. Clearly jobs have been created in North Carolina in the past several months and that's a great thing. It is also pretty clear that the labor force has declined, or at least has stagnated and certainly is not rising at the rate of some other states like California and Texas. Those numbers are open to examination and you can find alternative analysis on why. I simply googled "north carolina labor force and unemployment insurance" and got this page of results, you can all read more about it if you want to. https://www.google.com/search?q=north+carolina+labor+force+and+unemployment+insurance&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS504US504&oq=nor&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59j69i65l3j69i59.2048j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
That's the statistical side of it. The political side of it is Phil Berger wants to give himself the credit for all the jobs created, but doesn't want to take responsibility for the decline in the labor force (or even acknowledge that it exists). My personal take on it is that the NC GOP policies, especially those policies generally cited as "pro growth" such as slashing taxes on the wealthy and out-of-state corporations, have barely begun and it is disingenuous to give them credit for the jobs created. What is really happening is a general overall economic recovery, more jobs in every state, and a rising tide is lifting all the boats, Phil Berger's included.
I think it is equally disingenuous to pretend that ending UI benefits had no impact on labor force participation, since the definition of being in the labor force is "looking for work" and that is also a principal requirement for receiving UI. I don't think that the labor force decline can be pinned completely on the end of UI benefits - NC has an aging population and a lot of rural areas without opportunity and I think that has a significant impact on the situation as well. Scholars will probably write papers for a few years trying to hash that out since it is (obviously) a political football.
If you completely wash out the 70,000 people who dropped out of the labor force entirely, NC still has among the highest growth of jobs nationwide since late 2012. With the numbers left in, they're second nationally. With those people taken out, NC is still competitive with other States, but South Carolina, Georgia and Florida continue to lead. Unless the argument is the NC GOP is manipulating the numbers in those other States, it seems like the region is outpacing the rest of the country in growth.
Theories?
Theories?
Last edited:
dot com
Well-known member
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
I have got to stop playing around with BLS charts and do some work. Here is a chart showing the percentage change of actual non-farm payroll jobs nationally, in NC, CA, TX, GA, and VA since 2011. What you see is CA and TX beating the national average, NC and GA tracking the national number or lagging, and VA sucking.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,628
- Reaction score
- 22,649
Wow. You are clueless.
bmoneydeac
Butts - Jessica Biel's in particular
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Messages
- 19,154
- Reaction score
- 2,977
I have got to stop playing around with BLS charts and do some work. Here is a chart showing the percentage change of actual non-farm payroll jobs nationally, in NC, CA, TX, GA, and VA since 2011. What you see is CA and TX beating the national average, NC and GA tracking the national number or lagging, and VA sucking.
Yeah but all that can't fit onto a bumper sticker. Sorry, try again.
It's funny when you try to feel superior out loud. Clay Aiken in the front row of a Bette Middler concert would like you to tone it down.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
What percentage of people on UI actively choose to stay on it because it's easier than working? I know there's no real answer but I can't imagine the number is very high while I would guess JHMD thinks it's very high. I think it's a complete boogeyman which is why I have such a disconnect with JHMD's views.
As usual 923 kills it on this thread with actual facts.
As usual 923 kills it on this thread with actual facts.
Perhaps, but I would argue not nearly as sad as being a grown man posting 37,000 times on an internet message board looking to the concurrence of other posters for validation.
When people disagree with you, it is because they aren't smart enough to understand your nuanced genius.