Layoff announcements since election

[Interceptor]

He doesn't deal with it either. He cuts at 55, precisely covering up what I was saying: older people are either going back to work and/or delaying retirement. Which means the shrinking workforce is worse relative to the old age "good" leaving the workforce measure.

He did no such thing. Read the linked content again.

Bigger picture: Krugman has no credibility with me.

I don't see what relevance that this has to anything. This is an ad hominem unless there is a specific fudging of data in the example.

Karl Rove has no credibility with me, but if he says that 2 + 2 = 4 and shows his work, I am not going to throw out his proof just because I think he looks like a canned ham in a suit.

BTW "I don't have the data" = just that, I don't have the data right now. I've seen plenty of analysis showing the economic recovery as defined by shrinking unemployment is totally fake. We're not even close to back where we were with Bush, AND we're way behind with slower ramp previous recessions.

This thread will still be here when you find your evidence.

I hope things get a lot better, I know they are not currently.

Things are getting better. They are not getting better as fast as we'd like, but that's really not the point in contention.

[nickagneta]

While people are working later in life, people are not working later in life at the same jobs or even in the same careers that they started in unless they are professionals like lawyers or doctors.

Corporate America is always having higher paid mid level management types taking early retirement so they can hire college grads at 1/3 to 1/2 the cost. Since these types have also had their retirements obliterated by the stock market in recent years, they also have to work, so they are grabbing much lesser paying jobs or part time jobs to offset the decrease in income level.

Corporate America, simply put, doesn't allow employees to work for them for 40-50 years anymore or deep into their 60's or early 70's. The get rid of them with early retirements and talks of downsizing and then hire younger workers. Unless you are a CEO, COO, or major officer at a corporation, you aren't going to be growing old there. Not in today's employment market.

So, I do believe that a good portion of the people who stop looking for work are older, close to retirement age people. Yes, you here a lot about the people who stop looking and become homeless and so forth, but I believe they are in the minority as compared to the older workers that decide that the world is telling them its time to retire.

BTW, this exact thing has happened to 4 people I know including my father and that's why they left the workforce. I know no one who has been unemployed for such a long period of time that they gave up trying to find work.

[Brendan]

Alright I spent a few minutes googling, I think heritage has a good analysis of why a declining labor market is bad, and shows that the unemployment improvement is due to lower participation:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/07/unemployment-rate-drop-due-to-workers-leaving-labor-force/

Other things Krugman didn't unpack are part time workers seeking full time.

We're in a recovery, things are getting better slowly, unfortunately the labor market isn't one of them (yet).


Also this was ripe:

I don't see what relevance that this has to anything. This is an ad hominem unless there is a specific fudging of data in the example.

It's actually a logical fallacy in the context of this argument. But I read his thing and it seems like he's measuring the prime earning ears and then normalizing, which I think would fudge the numbers up some, but I'm not 100% sure.

[indeedproceed]

Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.

[action781]

Do we have a "hiring announcements since election" thread?

[Brendan]

Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.

You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

[indeedproceed]

Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.

You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

The analysis is from a conservative think-tank. That's what I'm adding. I'm saying your source is suspect because it has an explicit and often extremely conservative and partisan agenda.

[indeedproceed]

Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.

You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

The analysis is from a conservative think-tank. That's what I'm adding. I'm saying your source is suspect because it has an explicit and often extremely conservative and partisan agenda.

Also, the only sources they link to in their own 'analysis' are previous articles and sources from the Heritage foundation?

I feel dirty just clicking on the link.

[foulweatherfan]

Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.

You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

Should he have contributed something substantive like "Bigger picture: Heritage Foundation has zero credibility with me"? 

I read the blog post and I can't say there's anything wrong with the "analysis" because I can't find one. This is a listing of basic descriptive statistics available in every other jobs report summary, interwoven with a brief, pessimistic narrative.  That's not an analysis, it's a story.

The only bit I hadn't heard repeatedly before is the increase in disability claims, which is interesting but I'd need to see analyzed from a 3rd party source.

[KGs Knee]

Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.

You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

The analysis is from a conservative think-tank. That's what I'm adding. I'm saying your source is suspect because it has an explicit and often extremely conservative and partisan agenda.

So, the viewpoint of an extremely liberal partisan, such as yourself, carries any more validity?  I've seen you, yourself, criticize this exact type of sentiment from "the other side".

I agree the link from heritage is not a great example of anything, the article linked was lacking in supporting data.  I have seen enough data elsewhere to support the idea, though.

[foulweatherfan]

Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.

You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

The analysis is from a conservative think-tank. That's what I'm adding. I'm saying your source is suspect because it has an explicit and often extremely conservative and partisan agenda.

So, the viewpoint of an extremely liberal partisan, such as yourself, carries any more validity?  I've seen you, yourself, criticize this exact type of sentiment from "the other side".

I agree the link from heritage is not a great example of anything, the article linked was lacking in supporting data.  I have seen enough data elsewhere to support the idea, though.

I don't like that kind of broad dismissal of a source either - at least Heritage sometimes tries to conduct actual analysis, with math and charts and everything, which puts them a notch above the vast majority of the conservative media. 

But Heritage's actual analyses (which this blog post isn't) are pretty consistently terrible.  The crown jewel was when they projected the Bush tax cuts would completely eliminate the national debt by 2010.

[indeedproceed]

Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.

You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

The analysis is from a conservative think-tank. That's what I'm adding. I'm saying your source is suspect because it has an explicit and often extremely conservative and partisan agenda.

So, the viewpoint of an extremely liberal partisan, such as yourself, carries any more validity?  I've seen you, yourself, criticize this exact type of sentiment from "the other side".

You've seen me criticize people who called liberal think tanks 'biased'? I really think you're misremembering something there.

And extremely liberal partisan? Whoa whoa, mister labels. Glass houses, stones.

[KGs Knee]

And extremely liberal partisan? Whoa whoa, mister labels. Glass houses, stones.

I didn't mean it as a "negative".  Just an observation, based on your history of posts here.  I just found your original statement ironic.

If you found it offensive, I apologize.

[indeedproceed]

And extremely liberal partisan? Whoa whoa, mister labels. Glass houses, stones.

I didn't mean it as a "negative".  Just an observation, based on your history of posts here.  I just found your original statement ironic.

If you found it offensive, I apologize.

Well even if we look past your labeling of me, its not exactly apples to apples as a comparison of 'sources'.

I can't speak from a position of authority because I am fact just some guy, with biases and prejudices, like anyone else. If I say something that isn't a known fact in a debate, I'd expect someone to ask for a neutral source corroborating it. It happens literally all the time in these forums.

Like for instance if you woudl've said, 'why do you think the Heritage Foundation isn't an acceptable source?', I would've dug up things that support my statement.

So my own credibility as source material is kind of irrelevant.

[Brendan]

I said Krugman has zero credibility generally - but I did first read his analysis (and the top comments on his article) and first post what I saw wrong with that analysis. Doesn't compare with saying "that's a right wing site". Reason I brought it up is IP has done this to me something like 8m times in the last week  - I have never seen IP criticize someone for pointing out a left wing site when linked, but he does deny MSM is biased (again  ).

Here's the Heritage analysis for people who don't want to click a link, because they might feel dirty:

1. Unemployment rate fell to 7.7% in Nov
2. This is due to 146k new jobs and 350k leaving the workforce
3. 146k jobs is good (but tempered by revisions to previous reports of -45k)
4. Population growth means you need 125k new jobs per month to tread water
5. Extrapolating this out - growth is so slow it will take 5 years to get back to full employment

Conclusion: while the economy is in recovery, the recovery is a very anemic one.