It looks as though ZH is using labor force participation rate while Karl is using employment/population rate. I wouldn't be surprised if the BLS revised how they calculate things though. It wouldn't be the first time by any means and seems to be a favored propaganda tactic.

These both use NSA numbers. Neither are pretty.

I think we can all assume that the federal government will release nothing but great economic reports between now and the election.

Quote:

TPTB must really think the American public is so stupid and ignorant to not catch their blatant lies...

I don't know if stupid is the right word because without Karl's excellent analysis I would be in that group.

Great Ticker Karl. Thanks for all you do to keep us informed.

I really don't see much difference anymore between 1970's Czechoslovakia and today's "united States". The propaganda is the same, hell, many of the laws are just as, if not more restrictive than they were there as well.

Liesmen just declared the labor participation rate as unimportant.

No surprise there.

Gen, how about a chart showing when the last time our 'not in labor force percentage' was this high? How far back does this take us?

Well, I'm not sure I can get that number easily; the data source from which I pull only goes back to 1999. Let me see if I can get the raw data going back further from FRED.

Genesis, what about Federal Withholding Taxes deposits? Someone said that number was up.

These labor force participation numbers wouldn't be a problem if the size of government were the same as in the 50s and 60s and the jobs were good jobs held by men supporting families.

Check out the spin on this one...

http://www.ksla.com/story/16668815/unemp....

Heeeers Liesmen

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=300....

FRED has data back to the middle of 1976; the same graph extended out is below. Looks like we're at levels last ween in 1980ish, and the shape of this curve is very alarming. We are basically de-populating the labor force in the United States.

Well given that real wages have not been doing so great since then, the drop in the labor participation rate is going to have a very negative impact on future deficits.

Uh huh.

As I have said, the only number that matters when it comes to fiscal sustainability is the employment participation rate, since only employed people pay taxes.

Definitely going to be a material contributing factor to deficits/debt going parabolic. But once you past debt saturation, more debt kills economic activity and hence employment. This IMO, is further CLEAR evidence of debt saturation.

The 70s sure stunk....

It's not the 70s that stunk. Manufacturing employment peaked in 1979. Wage income grew through the mid to late 70s. It was after that period that stunk. Because it was under Reagan and subsequent presidents that we saw a marked shift towards outsourcing, debt, financialization and service based employment.



Sure, finance grew during the 70s, but it went practically went parabolic after 1980 (under Reagan). Note also, that the only other time that this happened (an oversized financial sector), was in the 20s-30s and we are WAY over-sized now. So basically, finance needs to about halve (or more) from where it currently is.

Now Santelli is back on talking bout the employment numbers again.

He's keeping calm.

They should put him and Liesmen head to head for the fireworks.

Yep.

Santelli just shoved the big one up LIESman's ass.

Quote:

It's not the 70s that stunk. Manufacturing employment peaked in 1979. Wage income grew through the mid to late 70s

For the record - you believe the numbers from the 70s...but not the current numbers...same supplier...

70s stunk... 46 - 70 = good...

Note that the fall in that graph coincided with the entry of women into the workforce as two-income homes became normal. Prior to that time a woman was counted as NILF if she was a stay-at-home Mom, and nearly all WERE.

Look at John Williams numbers on inflation for example. Yes, compared to today, I certainly do believe that the numbers in the 1970s were more accurate, because inflation was officially registering >10% in the 70s. What is our CPI saying now and what is the rate of increase in the price of your fuel, food, etc?


Also see:



EDIT: Here you go on the discrepancy on inflation:

With news like this, you'd think we'd be seeing a bigger pop. Perhaps real news (alt-news) is beginning to make inroads on MSM...

More BS on top of more BS. Why obey any laws? Why not lie about everything we do in life? The frustration is getting out of hand. The lies coming from this administration are getting bolder every week. They are teaching the young in America that you should say or do anything it takes to get what you want irregardless if it's true or not.

This just tells me that when the time comes for all this fraud to come to light, none of our lives will matter, only the power that they (the liars) want and will keep at any cost. These are minor lies compared to what they will do to maintain their power when the implosion comes .

Pennsylvania's individual taxes collected were *down*; not up. That means withholding (and employemnt) is *down*; which means either less people working, less overtime or pay cuts; perhaps all three.

http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/pr....


Perhaps we're an anomaly, but a big bellwhether like PA is down:


"Pennsylvania Revenue Department Releases January 2012 Collections

PR Newswire

HARRISBURG, Pa., Feb. 1, 2012


HARRISBURG, Pa., Feb. 1, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Pennsylvania collected $2.2 billion in General Fund revenue in January, which was $10.4 million, or 0.5 percent, less than anticipated, Secretary of Revenue Daniel Meuser reported today. Fiscal year-to-date General Fund collections total $13.8 billion, which is $497.2 million, or 3.5 percent, below estimate.

Sales tax receipts totaled $807.5 million for January, $65.5 million above estimate. Year-to-date sales tax collections total $5.2 billion, which is $ 42.2 million, or 0.8 percent, more than anticipated.

Personal income tax (PIT) revenue in January was $1.1 billion, $45.6 million below estimate. This brings year-to-date PIT collections to $5.7 billion, which is $211.5 million, or 3.6 percent, below estimate.

January corporation tax revenue of $96.1 million was $27.4 million below estimate. Year-to-date corporation tax collections total $1.3 billion, which is $286.7 million, or 18 percent, below estimate."