# Two interesting columns each with a different point **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-interesting-columns-each-with-a-different-point/611699 "2012-02-03T23:55:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fool_in_the_Rain)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-interesting-columns-each-with-a-different-point/611699/1 "2012-02-03T23:55:04Z")
First I saw this headline: Jobless rate at 3-year low as payrolls surge [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE7BM0AB20120203](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE7BM0AB20120203) > [@](#): > > Nonfarm payrolls jumped 243,000, the Labor Department said on Friday, as factory jobs grew by the most in a year. The jobless rate fell to 8.3 percent - the lowest since February 2009 - from 8.5 percent in December. > > The gain in employment was the largest since April and it far outstripped the 150,000 predicted in a Reuters poll of economists. It hinted at underlying economic strength and lessened chances of further stimulus from the Federal Reserve. And then I see this headline Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low > **[ZeroHedge](https://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-)** > > ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero > [@](#): > > \it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% \ Now I know Zerohedge is not a solid news source, but other sites carry the same headline. I just picked this because it does have graphs, presumably from Bloomberg. My questions: Are people really being honest with themselves when only half the story is being told? Yes the unemployment is down, but isn’t that really because so many of us are actually just falling off the rolls? Are people really going believe the job market is really doing this good? Seriously? How much longer can this go on before all hell breaks loose, and people begin to see the truth, assuming the above info is correct? ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-interesting-columns-each-with-a-different-point/611699/2 "2012-02-04T00:48:34Z")
Your graph basically mirrors the rise and then eventual retirement of baby boomers. A similar drop happened in July of 2003. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-interesting-columns-each-with-a-different-point/611699/3 "2012-02-04T00:48:49Z")
This just gives something for Obama to point a finger at. That’s all he wants. I just wonder how this will be twisted to be a positive for the president when he was pleading for the necessity of economic stimulus to congress a few months ago and they were being “reckless obstructionists”. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-interesting-columns-each-with-a-different-point/611699/4 "2012-02-04T01:05:05Z")
> [@sitchensis](#): > > Your graph basically mirrors the rise and then eventual retirement of baby boomers. A similar drop happened in July of 2003. This. OP, do you dispute that our population is aging, and thus a steadily greater percentage of workers will start to drop out of the workforce due to this? ---
**Author:** ![Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fool_in_the_Rain)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-interesting-columns-each-with-a-different-point/611699/5 "2012-02-04T01:30:31Z")
> [@sitchensis](#): > > Your graph basically mirrors the rise and then eventual retirement of baby boomers. A similar drop happened in July of 2003. Interesting, I didn’t consider that. That would make sense, as the boomers are starting to retire. Old column [http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/RetirementCrisis/2010/12/27/id/381191](http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/RetirementCrisis/2010/12/27/id/381191) This is first one that came up in Google, I have no ulterior motive here, just curiousity. but it does say, on average, approximately 10,000 would retire each day. Assuming that is correct - 300,000 retired in January, so that leaves 900,000. Assuming these are averages and accurate, that still seems high. I wonder how many are retiring before they want to? Or, it’s entirely possible that a higher than average number retired. Off to do some homework… ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-interesting-columns-each-with-a-different-point/611699/6 "2012-02-04T01:42:40Z")
I have no doubt that the recession has forced out some retirees who would have otherwise worked for a few more years. My parents are 10 years apart and my Dad chose to stay employed an extra few years to retire closer to my Mom. I’m sure there are people out there, who in a perfect world would have wanted to do something similar and were not able. I’m just saying that that is a far cry from an active disinformation campaign. These numbers are also gathered in a different way than unemployment numbers. If you want a job you can’t really “fall off the rolls” for unemployment numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-interesting-columns-each-with-a-different-point/611699/7 "2012-02-04T01:59:20Z")
The second link is more truthful. The first is a pretty bad spin. I’m too lazy to calculate it, but if we were to add in discouraged workers, I wonder what the “true” unemployment rate would be? > [@sitchensis](#): > > If you want a job you can’t really “fall off the rolls” for unemployment numbers. If you stop looking for a job and haven’t looked for one in, iirc, a year, you’re considered a discouraged worker and aren’t counted as being unemployed. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-interesting-columns-each-with-a-different-point/611699/8 "2012-02-05T03:22:39Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > The second link is more truthful. The first is a pretty bad spin. I’m too lazy to calculate it, but if we were to add in discouraged workers, I wonder what the “true” unemployment rate would be? The first link is more truthful. The second is pretty bad spin. I’m too lazy to figure out a reason why this is so, so you’ll just have to take my word for it. Pretty easy, huh? Why should we just take your word for it? If you are indeed too lazy, perhaps you should take this to MPSIMS. I for one do not know which of the dueling links is more accurate, but I do know if I were to give an opinion I would try to back it up. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-interesting-columns-each-with-a-different-point/611699/9 "2012-02-05T11:35:40Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > The second link is more truthful. The first is a pretty bad spin. I’m too lazy to calculate it, but if we were to add in discouraged workers, I wonder what the “true” unemployment rate would be? You’re too lazy to look up the U-6 unemployment rate? It’s 15.1% a full percent lower than it was 3 months ago, and the lowest since Feb 2009 (sound familiar?) [A bunch of unemployment rates](http://www.portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp)