Gov. Phil Scott frequently asserts that Vermont loses an average of six workers each day, and he’s made reversing the trend a top priority. But some lawmakers say that number is wrong, and that it will change how they approach Scott’s policy proposals.
“It’s just not true,” Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) told reporters Thursday. He handed out a memo from the legislature’s economist, Tom Kavet, that showed the labor force actually grew by an average of 2.3 workers per day from January 2016 to December 2017.
Citing the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Kavet wrote, “While the state labor force had declined for a number of years as a result of the recent severe recession, it has exhibited slight growth since early 2016.” And, Kavet noted, the labor force is “likely to continue to grow slightly, despite expected declines in prime working age population cohorts.”
“Labor force” refers to the total pool of available workers — those employed and those looking for work. Seven Days examined Scott’s labor force claim, and two of his other oft-cited statistics, last June.
“We’re not saying life is perfect and the state has solved its demographics and other challenges,” Ashe said. But Scott’s claim “raises questions about whether you would craft policy the exact same way if the number they’re using is actually in the wrong direction.”
Scott spokesperson Rebecca Kelley shot down Ashe’s assessment.
“Cherry-picking from this small window to deny the demographic crisis we’re seeing is like claiming that a 40-degree day in January indicates climate change isn’t real (which we know is not the case),” she wrote in an email. “Why some in the legislature continue to be demographic deniers is baffling and it puts every public investment we value at risk if they’re unwilling to address these challenges.”
Scott’s “six” stat — which he repeated during his January 23 budget address — is drawn from a seven-year average beginning in April 2009, when the state’s labor force peaked at 361,177, and ending in April 2016, when it was 344,552.
If updated to include April 2017 data, that figure would average out to a reduction of 4.75 workers per day. Using the five-year average from December 2012 to December 2017, it would further drop to 3.85.
“We’re still not even close to where we were in 2009, and that’s the story,” said Dustin Degree, who is Scott’s special assistant and executive director of workforce expansion. “What really kind of shocks me is that the legislature is spending their time trying to do a math check or a ‘gotcha’ on such an incredibly huge issue.”
Kelley pointed to an analysis that suggests Vermont will see its working-age population shrink by more than 10 percent by 2040.
But why not update the governor’s signature line to reflect the more recent data?
“I think we’d want to see some more data,” Kelley said, adding that the administration would “want to look at finalized data before making determinations.”
Disclosure: Tim Ashe is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Find our conflict-of-interest policy here: sevendaysvt.com/disclosure.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“Seven year average” – this is random nonsense.
Scott has no basic understanding of statistics or demographics: both are actual sciences that people spend years studying.
Consider the greater context.
From 2010 to 2017, Florida employment increased by more than 1.5 Million jobs. That’s an increase of about 580 jobs a day for the seven year period. Meanwhile, we Vermonters are arguing whether or not 2 or 3 jobs a day one way or the other for a one year period constitutes a healthy economy.
The emperor (Senate President Pro Tempore) has no clothes.
Wait, I’m seriously confused by this. Does no one in Scott’s administration understand anything about statistics? You can’t assert causation from a correlation when a confounding variable is clearly present. Asserting that Vermont’s labor trend is entirely indicative of systemic problems when a global financial meltdown occurred is ludicrous.
It is noteworthy that while the labor force declined (mostly due to retirements), Vermont gained 20,000 new jobs. That is, not only did we fill the jobs vacated by retirees, but we created 20,000 more. So while the long-term demographic change is real, it has not yet prevented job growth.
Mr. Hoffer is ‘cherry picking’ statistics again.
While Vermont’s Non Farm Employment increased by 22,000 jobs from 2009 to 2017, if the basis date is 2007 to 2017, Vermont gained only 10,000 jobs (2.7 per day) in Non Farm Employment over the period.
Meanwhile, from 2009 to 2017, Vermont lost 22,000 Farm Employment jobs.
While the generally accepted payroll statistics typically cited by economists are so-called Non Farm payrolls, they do not include agricultural work, unincorporated self-employment (sole proprietorships), employment by private households (lawn & gardening, housecleaning, and so forth), the military and intelligence agencies.
In most states, Non Farm payrolls account for the significant majority of total payrolls. But in a State like Vermont, Farm payrolls are a larger proportion of the economy than they may be elsewhere and deserve careful consideration. In this case, when considering all employment, Vermont has had 0% employment gains over the period.
Governor Scott and his team seem to have a fact problem. No wonder he doesn’t want to carbon tax study – he can’t deal with the facts he currently has in front of him.
this is propaganda to support the devaluing of labor by means of illegal workers via south of the border. This is how they claim to justify being a “sanctuary state”
its worth noting that our state auditor- Doug Hoffer- the guy who failed to catch the obvious jay peak fraud- is commenting here as well. Its no surprise he is towing the party line that VT is in need of cheap foreign labor…
because HIS job is secure….so F the rest of Vermont….
the same manner he treated the contractors who were ripped off at jay peak
There are apparently two problems facing Vermont. The first is a decreasing population of workers due to decreasing opportunities and the second is an overall decrease in the quality of those who may be available. Ask any employer in this state. The ‘workforce’ is riddled with people who are unwilling, unable, unqualified. In general, the majority of our unemployed are too drunk, strung out and unreliable to do anything resembling work.
Have no fear legal weed is almost here!
Mr. Eshelman said that from “2009 to 2017, Vermont lost 22,000 Farm Employment jobs.”
That is not accurate. Not only did we gain almost 20,000 jobs, but employment is virtually identical to what it was in 2009.
I suggest everyone read the U.S. Dept. of Labor statistics for themselves.
https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.vt.htm
@Jay Eshelman
Hoffman gonna Hoff. Haven’t you learned that by now?
What’s amazing is that he has the time to audit, comment on every article related to VT economics within seconds and tell people that pay his salary that they’re idiots simultaneously. You’d think auditing a state would be more time-consuming.
At this point, I can more or less predict with 95% accuracy which stories he’ll show up commenting on at 7D, VT Digger and the Freeps or any other online outlet that still allows comments based on the title of the article.
RMcCloud – It’s very interesting that you (and some others) are so bothered by efforts to present facts. If an article or a commenter misrepresents the facts on a subject about which I have some knowledge, I offer information. I’ve been working with this type of data for almost 30 years. I like it. And there is a good deal of misinformation out there so there is no shortage of opportunities. Frankly, that should be of more interest than whether I post or not.
That you would object to these posts is quite something. Do you complain about those who also post regularly but aren’t elected officials? If not, why not? Indeed, I see your name quite a bit. Should there be limits? Who decides how much is OK and how much is not?
As for my time, it’s just that; my time. My last post was 8:44 PM and this one is 6:50 AM. Not sure why you think that interferes with my day job.
And finally, efforts to dissuade folks from posting is really unfortunate. I hear from people who don’t post because they would prefer not to be insulted or ridiculed. That’s a shame.
“Not only did we gain almost 20,000 jobs, but employment is virtually identical to what it was in 2009.”
That’s what I said, Mr. Hoffer. From 2009 to 2017 Vermont’s Non Farm employment increased by 22,000 jobs while Non Farm employment declined by the same amount….rendering Vermont’s total employment “…virtually identical to what it was in 2009.”
Mr. Eshelman – This is what you said earlier: “Meanwhile, from 2009 to 2017, Vermont lost 22,000 Farm Employment jobs.” Your latest post correctly referred to “employment” rather than jobs. They are not the same.
There are only (civilian) jobs. There is no such thing as “Farm Employment” jobs. What you are referring to is employment, which as you pointed out includes self-employment. Jobs data comes from payroll records. Employment data comes from self-reported information from the Current Population Survey.
In any case, we did not “lose” 22,000 farm jobs as you call it. We do have a large number of people aging out of the workforce (and others moving from self-employment to jobs). When that many people retire each year, it creates openings (replacement) for those looking for work or advancement. That’s a good thing. Had we actually “lost” 22,000 jobs, it would be a disaster and evident in many ways (e.g., increased unemployment claims, dramatic reductions in tax revenue, large numbers of businesses closing, and so forth). That’s not happening.
The growth in jobs reflects a growing economy (admittedly slower than we would like). But the flat employment figures do not reflect some equivalent dark underside. It’s mostly just retiring baby boomers.
“As for my time, it’s just that; my time.”
No, Mr. Hoffer, it’s the taxpayers’ time. You repeatedly post on weekdays, during the workday:
12:54 pm, 4:05 pm, 4:10 pm, 12:21 pm, 4:32 pm, 2:51 pm, 9:38 am, 4:00 pm, 3:43 pm, 1:22 pm, 12:24 pm, 11;36 am, 2:24 pm, 9:14 am..
And that’s just on Seven Days alone.
And as for the people you supposedly “hear from who don’t post because they would prefer not to be insulted or ridiculed,” you’re shedding crocodile tears. Take your complaint to all the anonymous left wingers on this site who hurl insults at people every day.
knowyourassumptions goes in for the kill
My goodness. Lets take a closer look.
12:54 pm lunch time
4:05 pm I start work before 7:00 AM so 4:00 PM is sometimes after work for me
4:10 pm again, after work
12:21 pm lunch time
4:32 pm note – although after work, the subject is work: it was a story about one of our audit reports; I responded to a readers inquiry about the subject of the audit; imagine? an elected official responding to constituent inquiries! oh wait, that’s part of my job
2:51 pm again, a story about an audit report and I responded to an inquiry by a reader
9:38 am guilty; I wrote six words in response to a really cool article
4:00 pm again, after work
3:43 pm guilty; 16 words
1:22 pm I was quoted in Fair Game and someone sent me the link; Im a public official; it goes with the territory
12:24 pm lunch time
11:36 am early lunch; Im old
2:24 pm yet another article about one of our audit reports; I commented on quotes from a representative of the auditee (the Judiciary)
9:14 am here again, I provided information about and a link to a report from our office on health care price transparency
So what do we have here. Fourteen incidents where I supposedly posted during work hours at taxpayer expense. In fact, five were directly work-related; four were during lunch (I assume its OK for elected officials to take a lunch break); and three were after work. So that leaves two incidents representing a few minutes of my time over three years. I guess you got me.
@ The Hoff
Well, ACTUALLY (that’ll be my new nickname for you, it’s catchy), you haven’t seen me commenting online a lot.
It’s a bogus handle. I never comment on articles. Click my username and see for yourself. I’m a big believer in that web anonymity you hate so much.
But I’ve been seeing you pop up on just about every econ article comment thread in VT media over the last few years polishing the turd that is VT’s economic state.
The trend is clear: hollowing out of the middle class in VT so that there’s a few tycoons and local landlords at the top, a few state functionaries like yourself with decent salaries in the middle (the administrative class) and a bunch of serfs that can run the seasonal tourist attractions at the bottom.
Which is cool because then the NY, CT, MA and NJ folk will have a nice green place they can summer in without the middle class riffraff they hate so much that actually, y’know, built this state.
The reality is this: stats can be manipulated any which way you want, mostly through lies of omission.
So employment numbers are *about* the same after recovering from the “Great Recession”.
Gnarly.
Who gives a shit? Are the jobs being generated quality jobs that pay well or are they lifty and concierge gigs at ski resorts?
It seems like people are waking up to that reality, perhaps too late. Gee, wonder if that’s why Scott won the election? As a side note, I hear very little about Shumlin nowadays. Which is odd because he was probably the most disastrous governor in VT history.
rmccloud: “@ The Hoff”
“Well, ACTUALLY (that’ll be my new nickname for you, it’s catchy)…”
I suspect you are not aware that your nickname for me is actually the name of one of Vermont’s finest public servants. Phil Hoff was elected governor in 1962 and served three terms. He is still with us and is greatly respected. When I first came to Vermont looking for a job after law school, I was fortunate to meet with Gov. Hoff who was (like me) a Williams grad. So while I’m honored (not your intention), I would prefer that you use something else.
You also said that you see me “pop up on just about every econ article comment thread in VT media over the last few years polishing the turd that is VT’s economic state.”
You have completely missed the point. I am compelled to correct factual errors, but my efforts are not intended to “polish the turd” as you so inelegantly put it. I have spent 30 years advocating on behalf of those disadvantaged by a system that leaves most working families behind. My comments are intended to challenge the mistaken impression that Vermont’s economy is especially challenged (it’s not) because we struggle with the same problems found all over America and that the cause of our problems has little to do with state policies because state’s have almost no ability to influence short-term economic trends in the face of federal budgets, trade agreements, interest rates, currency exchange rates, and cheap labor overseas.
I appreciate and share your frustration with the economy, but you’re anger at me is misdirected. But it’s not the first time so I’ll get over it.
@ Hoff to the Races (for Auditor)
I’m well aware of Phil Hoff.
I was born well after you carpetbagged up here from NY but I’m not an idiot. Some of us ‘millenials’ read.
Hoff getting elected was a turning point in VT history.
Before: a small, insignificant but proud and more importantly sane state run by people that could balance a friggin’ check book.
After: Well, let’s look at the results.
And I’m not angry at you. Why would I be? Never met you, probably never will.
There’s no anger, just facts. Facts matter. And the fact of the matter is that VT went from “makes sense” to “what the Eff is going on” rather quickly right around the time you and those of your ilk showed up.
Coincidence? I think not.
Enough of the auditor’s semantic sophistry: Vermont has approximately the same number of jobs today as it did back in 2009 (we agree). Whether or not the 22,000 jobs that were ‘gained’ or appeared out of thin air (i.e. created for the most part by Verrmont’s health, education and government sectors), were offset by 22,000 jobs that were ‘lost’, vanished into thin air or otherwise became invisible over the same period, isn’t the point. Those jobs no longer exist and despite the job creation, funded primarily by increased taxes, Vermont’s total employment has been flat for the last 8 years. End of story.
@jayeshelman
obviously that sophistication is too much for you to comprehend so we’ll put it in terms easy to understand for a 3rd grader: Vermont’s unemployment rate is 3%, one of the lowest in the nation. ‘Nuff said.
I stand corrected – VT’s unemployment rate is 2.8%, as of Dec. 2017 with only Hawaii, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa reporting lower rates. https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
@ Matt Kelly:
I guess you, being a 3rd grader, don’t understand that a low unemployment number, by itself, is not a terribly meaningful statistic.
The unemployment rate on the moon is zero. But the moon doesn’t exactly have a great economy.
VT’s low unemployment rate is not, by itself, indicative that the state of our economy is good.
rmccloud – “Some of us ‘millenials’ read. “
That’s great. Now if only you can find a way to communicate without insulting people.
@knowyourassumptions
There you go again, assuming. And we know how that all turns out. The first three letters spell it out clearly. Am greatly past 3rd grade thanks. And how do you know there’s zero unemployment on the moon. Have you been there? Didn’t think so….
But to your point about accurate reflection of the state of the economy, GDP might be a better indicator. To which, Vermont ranks last for GDP at $24.5Billion, but when put in terms of per capita, Vermont fares better than 17 other States, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S.… and this number has been consistently growing. http://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/vermont/
Not bad when you consider only Wyoming has less population than Vermont.
Facts matter.
So, you were harping on the relatively low unemployment rate as an indicator of the success of the VT economy, and now instead you’re pointing to a per capita GDP figure that puts Vermont in the bottom third of the US?
Oh, that’s great.
Yes, facts do matter.
Yes to putting low unemployment as an indicator of a strong economy. You were the one who said it wasn’t an accurate indicator even though economists have been using that figure historically for decades. So I sought to assuage your limited comprehension to add another indicator that obviously, you still don’t comprehend. And the stats speak for themselves: Vermont, with the second lowest population, does better in GDP than 17 other States with larger populations, and that GDP figure continues to climb, indicating a very strong economy. Its an easy extrapolation for thinking people to make: Vermont’s economy is better than 1/3 of the country.
Facts matter.
jay eshelman – “Vermont has approximately the same number of jobs today as it did back in 2009 (we agree)”
No, we do not agree. We have 20,000 more jobs than we did in 2009. Period. You remain confused about the difference between jobs and employment.
Your refusal to acknowledge the impact of baby boomers retiring is curious. The decline in the labor force means there are fewer people actively looking for work (which is one reason the unemployment rate is so low). But once those thousands of folks retire and leave the workforce, their jobs are filled, but they are not replaced one for one with more working age people. That’s why “employment” is flat. We didn’t “lose” 22,000 jobs; we lost working age people.
As I said, if we had actually lost 22,000 jobs, I’m pretty sure we would have seen the evidence. Where are closed businesses? The bankruptcies? The foreclosures? The increased unemployment claims? The huge drop in tax revenues?
Second, you claimed that the 22,000 jobs were “created for the most part by Verrmont’s health, education and government sectors… funded primarily by increased taxes.” That is false.
1) The “education” jobs you referred to are in the private sector.
2) The health care sector certainly benefits from a lot of public funds (mostly Medicare & Medicaid), but to my knowledge there have been no “increased taxes” to support them. If you know different, please share.
3) You might like to believe that government jobs are a big growth industry, but you are mistaken. These are the numbers from 2009 to 2016.
-206 Local (including public schools)
+256 State
+384 Federal
“to assuage your limited comprehension”
We agree that GDP per capita is a valid statistic. VT’s places it in the bottom third of the US.
Comparing per capita GDP among states with greater and lesser populations is a meaningless, irrational comparison. Per capita GDP is per capita GDP.
Facts matter, and so does understanding.
But that’s EXACTLY what it means, GDP PER CAPITA relates exclusively to population!!!!!! https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dicti… Clearly, its an accurate representation no matter your assumption that it doesn’t. Vermont, 49th in population, has a GDP Per Capita that ranks HIGHER than ONE THIRD of the States, ALL with higher populations.
Facts matter. Assumptions don’t!
knowyourassumptions said “”Comparing per capita GDP among states with greater and lesser populations is a meaningless, irrational comparison.”
Not true. In fact, it is the only reasonable way to compare states of different size and is exactly why BEA calculates and publishes the data. Per capita GDP is used both domestically and internationally.
And I will add, that Vermont ranks HIGHER in GDP PER CAPITA than Florida and Arizona, both with their great weather, no state income tax and pro sports teams, in addition to Michigan with its automotive industry and sports teams. Go Vermont!
Mr. Hoffer, I didn’t say Vermont lost 22,000 jobs. I said Vermont’s employment is flat. For every one of those 22,000 Non-Farm jobs it gained since 2009, it lost a job somewhere else, rendering the number of jobs in Vermont roughly the same today as there were in 2009. Just because people retire, move out of the State, or ‘take a powder’…..when the job is gone, it’s gone.
Re: “1) The “education” jobs you referred to are in the private sector.”
Public school employment and much of Vermont’s private school employment is funded by property tax dollars. Vermont’s state universities are also supported by tax dollars.
Re: ” 2) The health care sector certainly benefits from a lot of public funds (mostly Medicare & Medicaid), but to my knowledge there have been no “increased taxes” to support them.”
Actually, .9% more Medicare taxes (from 1.45% to 2.35%) were added on wages of $200K or more beginning in 2013. And given that healthcare premiums have increased too, for those working in State government and the public education system, those costs are born, directly or indirectly, by taxpayers as well.
Lastly, I didn’t say government jobs are a ‘big growth industry’ either. But I did say that education, healthcare and government jobs are the employment sectors with the largest increases – and that’s saying something when Vermont’s overall employment picture has been flat for the last 8 years.
As you often say, facts matter.
Mr. Eshelman – You said “I didn’t say Vermont lost 22,000 jobs.”
But a few sentences later you said “For every one of those 22,000 Non-Farm jobs it gained since 2009, it lost a job somewhere else…”
As you know, we can track jobs gained and lost by industry ‘in the CES and QCEW. You say we lost 22,000 jobs. Where were they? Which industries? The data comes from the CPS and the sample is so small we can’t answer those questions. That is one of the reasons they are not referred to as jobs.
Re: “Actually, .9% more Medicare taxes (from 1.45% to 2.35%) were added on wages of $200K or more beginning in 2013. And given that healthcare premiums have increased too, for those working in State government and the public education system, those costs are born, directly or indirectly, by taxpayers as well.”
In addition to the tax increase listed above, the Medicare law now requires individuals with incomes higher than $85K and couples earning more than $170K to pay higher premiums for Part B and prescription drug coverage. This change in the law goes into effect in February 2018. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you how much more the increased premium is (we haven’t received that info.), only that there is an increase coming.
The paradox: It will soon no longer pay to earn more money……so why bother?
Re: “As you know, we can track jobs gained and lost by industry ‘in the CES and QCEW. You say we lost 22,000 jobs. Where were they? Which industries? The data comes from the CPS and the sample is so small we can’t answer those questions. That is one of the reasons they are not referred to as jobs.”
Just because you can’t answer ‘the question’ doesn’t mean the jobs haven’t decreased. This is one of the reasons a fellow named Disraeli said “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Nonfarm payroll employment is a compiled name for goods, construction and manufacturing companies in the US. It does not include farm workers, private household employees, or non-profit organization employees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonfarm_payr…
Nonfarm payroll is a term used in the U.S. to refer to any job with the exception of farm work, unincorporated self-employment, and employment by private households, the military and intelligence agencies. Proprietors are also excluded.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nonfa…
Re: ” You are still confusing jobs and employment.”
When a Vermonter is employed, ostensibly, he or she has a job.
– In December 2009, 335,834 Vermonters were employed.
– In December 2017, 335,906 Vermonters were employed.
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServl…
Lest this continued banter confuse 7 Days readers any further, I want to remind them that they should read the USDoL report.
And while the Governor may have over-stated job losses (who knows what cherry picked data he uses), Mr. Hoffer is responding in kind. Not only has total employment growth been flat since it reached its low in 2009, many of the jobs replacing older ones have lower wages, the work force is declining, student enrollments are declining, Vermonter’s healthcare premiums, copays, deductibles AND taxes continue to increase – in large part because much of the job growth we see in Vermont is in the Education, Healthcare and Government sectors (public or private) that are funded, for the most part, by premiums and taxes.
Mr. Eshelman – You said, “When a Vermonter is employed, ostensibly, he or she has a job.”
No. That is not always true. Many Vermonters are self-employed and don’t have regular jobs (i.e., paychecks from an employer). So when they retire, the job count is unaffected. Only “employment” changes. This matters a lot these days because BLS reports that the largest group of self-employed Americans are (by far) older. So when those folks retire, there is one less person “employed” but we don’t lose a job.
People retiring from self-employment is not the same as when we lose a nurse, a firefighter, a mechanic or a cashier. There is a reason economists and the media report regularly on the “jobs” data, but not on employment. I’m not sure why you are reluctant to accept that.
In any case, the fact of 20,000 new jobs is undeniable. Does that mean our economy is great? Of course not. But the suggestion that flat employment is a meaningful indicator of our economic condition is just plain wrong.
And this is the rub: in that metric self-employed people, who pay taxes none the less, aren’t considered as having a job. So when they lose their employment, or they retire, they fall through the Non Farm statistical crack.
This is precisely the point I’ve been making from the start, about focusing only on the Non-Farm employment stats. There are many folks in Vermont who work as self-employed sole proprietorships, be they entrepreneurs, house cleaners, handy men/women, farmers, consultants of all kinds….not to mention the military. They contribute greatly to our economy. And to ignore their existence, because a chosen statistical bias doesn’t include them, not only misrepresents reality, it gives an incomplete picture of our economy.
Of course, even when this demographic isn’t included in the metric, not all is well in ‘River City’ and it serves no purpose, at least not to most Vermont taxpayers, to cite out-of-context statistics simply because that’s the way it’s done in some circles or because it sheds a marginally better light on our economic circumstances.
Mr Eshelman – You have definitely fallen through the looking glass.
“And this is the rub: in that metric self-employed people, who pay taxes none the less, aren’t considered as having a job. So when they lose their employment, or they retire, they fall through the Non Farm statistical crack.”
The fact that they are in one or another statistical bucket is immaterial to their real lives.
You also complained that “to ignore their existence, because a chosen statistical bias doesn’t include them, not only misrepresents reality, it gives an incomplete picture of our economy.”
What? First, the BLS, Census and IRS have many data sources that cover the self-employed so no one is ignoring their existence.
Second, the “jobs” data is not biased. It simply reflects the source of the data, which is payroll records that can be verified (so-called establishment data).
Third, jobs data does not “misrepresent reality.” You have decided to assign tremendous weight to the employment figures and argue that I (and others) ignore them in order to present a more favorable picture of the economy. Hogwash. Changes in demographics leading to flat employment is not an indicator of a problem with the economy. It’s no more or less what is; demographic changes decades in the making.
if you are off unemployment as a result of running out of benefits but still out of work you are considered to not be looking for work and therefore are not counted as “unemployed”
the Jobs data is completely FALSE
like every statistic it fails to address reality as it can and is manipulated in a variety of ways to achieve the said results whatever party is pushing for
I have never seen so many homeless people in Vermont in the last 25 years.
this is unprecedented
anyone can see with their own eyes the unemployment problem in Vermont
and while there is jobs
most are minimum wage part time jobs
where you will work 80 hours to remain poor as dirt
its no surprise many are no longer in that rat race
BTW 7 Day readers. Speaking of throwing statistical spaghetti against the wall…. the demographic of retirement age Vermonters is telling on its own. The Vermont Tax Study 2005-2015 reported that:
“The number of young people under 18 years of age fell almost 14 percent, but the number of older people between 65 years of age and 74 years of age increased almost 57 percent as baby boomers entered their retirement years (see Table 1). The number of middle-aged people, age 35 to 44, fell about 23 percent, but the number of older workers, age 55 to 64, increased about 29 percent.” Page 3
” ….the proportion of Vermonters in their traditional working years, age 25 through 64, is projected to decline by almost 6 percent (328,298 in 2015 to 309,947 in 2025).” Page 4
“…the share of jobs filled by people age 55 or older increased from 17.5 percent to 26.2 percent.” Page 5
Snow Creek said “if you are off unemployment as a result of running out of benefits but still out of work you are considered to not be looking for work and therefore are not counted as “unemployed”…”
That is not true. It is a common misperception, but it is not accurate. The Current Population Survey (source of the data) does not ask any questions about unemployment compensation.
“That is not true. It is a common misperception, but it is not accurate. The Current Population Survey (source of the data) does not ask any questions about unemployment compensation”
So what you are saying is you have no idea what the unemployment rate is as they don’t ask any questions about it in the Current Population Survey (source of the data)
Snow Creek said “So what you are saying is you have no idea So what you are saying is you have no idea what the unemployment rate is as they don’t ask any questions about it in the Current Population Survey.”
That is not at all what I said. The CPS asks a bunch of questions about whether you work (if so, doing what, for how many hours, pay, etc.), or not; whether you are looking for work or not (and if not, why not); and so forth.
What they don’t do is ask whether you receive unemployment compensation. If you receive it, you must look for work. That’s all that matters. If you’re not looking, you’re not supposed to be getting the compensation.
“If you receive it, you must look for work. That’s all that matters. If you’re not looking, you’re not supposed to be getting the compensation”
how does that negate the fact that once you lose your unemployment benefits you are no longer considered to be looking for work?
because you failed to address what I wrote.
Assuming that people are no longer interested in work once off unemployment is absurdly dumb
Frankly its shockingly out of touch to have such an opinion
Its no surprise that you feel that if someone is not being compensated for unemployment then they must not want to be part of the job market
this is the kind of elitist thinking that produces such falsities as our fabricated unemployment numbers
Numbers which are falsely produced to push the agenda of devaluing labor for the wealthy
its how you justify being a “sanctuary” state where illegals are exploited for your gain
its part of the bi partisan effort in Vermont by out of state transplants like yourself
I will say it again- I have never seen so many homeless in VT in 25 years
you only have to open your eyes to see the reality
Of course being from Norwalk CT- I doubt you can see such reality
More statistical spaghetti: While unemployment compensation is yet another aspect of economic consideration, to cite it in either way in this discussion as an indicator of things to come is an exercise in futility. The majority of walk-in job applicants to my business, for example, are (I’m making a value judgment here of course) clearly intended to meet the search requirement, not get the job.
And, of course, this says nothing about workman’s comp. and social security disability gaming. Several years ago I asked one young fellow standing outside a construction site if he’d be interested in doing some ‘maintenance’ work. He said he couldn’t because he’d lose his disability payments. What’s your disability, I asked. Work Anxiety, he said. He said his father had the disability too. I kid you not.
When we consider that people carry personal health insurance, are covered by workman’s comp. when employed, and can qualify for S.S. disability coverage – businesses and taxpayers are paying taxes and premiums that cover individuals several times over. Meanwhile, ” Growing at the highest rate were taxes on health care, increasing at an average annual rate of 6.9 percent adjusted for inflation (see Figure 9). Page 11 2005-2015 VT Tax Stats
The question is, of course, how do employment stats categorize these folks?
Snow Creek said “how does that negate the fact that once you lose your unemployment benefits you are no longer considered to be looking for work?”
That is simply not true. Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with the CPS, which is the source of unemployment data. Period.
“Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with the CPS, which is the source of unemployment data. “
You previously asserted that if one was on unemployment then they were looking for work and hence still considered “unemployed”
If one is not employed and not working currently then they are listed as not looking for work
which seriously alters the data as those people ARE still looking for work
You keep trying to dodge this with increasingly vague and reticent answers