Unemployment Rate at lowest since March 2009......

[Docdb04]

Last I saw Apple traded at $390.

Actually, that wasn't hard at all.  Just needed to find the historic prices, which was easy.

I don't remember the exact purchase date, but I know it was just after my bday.... I just looked up what the share price was around that time. I paid about $197/share.

I have Apple shares.

#smartmoneychicks

Smart move.   

[gtrdave]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/november-unemployment_b_1125345.html

Some truth about the Nov. jobs numbers. It echos some of what's being said in this thread and offers other explanations for the data.

[Docdb04]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/november-unemployment_b_1125345.html

Some truth about the Nov. jobs numbers. It echos some of what's being said in this thread and offers other explanations for the data.

The labor force is another factor that can skew the numbers.   

[gtrdave]

The labor force is another factor that can skew the numbers.

Exactly.
They're saying that there's some 300,000+ people that just 'dropped out' of the labor force, which helped bring the overall % out-of-work down.
How does that happen?

[LaylaMonroe]

dropped out = passed a certain age deeming them not eligible to be counted in the workforce??

Last I saw Apple traded at $390.

Smart move.   

Thanks. I can't take credit. Just followed some advice from my SMCs chapter.

Wish I had had more money to invest at that time and was less focused on diversifying.

[Docdb04]

dropped out = passed a certain age deeming them not eligible to be counted in the workforce??

Thanks. I can't take credit. Just followed some advice from my SMCs chapter.

Wish I had had more money to invest at that time and was less focused on diversifying.

They need to produce a detailed breakdown of the numbers.  But then again, that would reveal too much and they can't have that.  Numbers don't lie, but they tell more than one story. 

[under13]

Actually, that wasn't hard at all.  Just needed to find the historic prices, which was easy.

I don't remember the exact purchase date, but I know it was just after my bday.... I just looked up what the share price was around that time. I paid about $197/share.

That's whats up! I just wonder how much higher it will go. You most def bought at a good time

[musallio]

Exactly.
They're saying that there's some 300,000+ people that just 'dropped out' of the labor force, which helped bring the overall % out-of-work down.
How does that happen?

dropped out = passed a certain age deeming them not eligible to be counted in the workforce??

The way I see it is that +-300 000 people reached retirement age, leaving vacancies to be filled.
So 300 000 people who are were placed in those jobs.

But then a prudent person would ask the next question- does this 300 000 constitute people who were jobless previously? If yes, then it means that a significant percentage of people have indeed been employed. However, the 300 000 could very well be placement of peoplel who were moving from one job to the next, with probably half the number of people being really placed- so it's a very tricky exercise to quantify employment figures.
Would it perhaps be easier to quantify the quality of life?

[LaylaMonroe]

I read somewhere that they use unemployment numbers to feed these stats. So when a person is no longer eligible to receive unemployment, they're no longer counted as "unemployed."

[musallio]

Ok, I've read Jared's article and see the question in context:

Again, the employment/ unemployment figures are as biased as the definition of the word.
For instance, some economies do not have a solid definition of the word- they rely on info supplied in surveys. That article refers- if 190 000 people have given up looking for work, so when they complete surveys they classify themselves as self-employed, can you really say that such people are really employed or more to the point, have a stable source of income?
I would only estimate 0.0005 [about 6??] of those people to have started something successfully. The rest just live....

So there is really nothing to be excited about- if anything, policymakers should be really worried that people have lost all hope in ever finding a  "stable" job.

[Docdb04]

I read somewhere that they use unemployment numbers to feed these stats. So when a person is no longer eligible to receive unemployment, they're no longer counted as "unemployed."

So I guess they are just considered "Jobless" at that point.  It slightly makes sense, since they can't track those who are unemployed if they are not receiving benefits.  However, if they have reached the point of ineligibility (That's a lot of "I's"), they need to factor that number.

Ok, I've read Jared's article and see the question in context:

Again, the employment/ unemployment figures are as biased as the definition of the word.
For instance, some economies do not have a solid definition of the word- they rely on info supplied in surveys. That article refers- if 190 000 people have given up looking for work, so when they complete surveys they classify themselves as self-employed, can you really say that such people are really employed or more to the point, have a stable source of income?
I would only estimate 0.0005 [about 6??] of those people to have started something successfully. The rest just live....

So there is really nothing to be excited about- if anything, policymakers should be really worried that people have lost all hope in ever finding a  "stable" job.

Good point.