Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,207
- 25
Having only thought about this a minute (so I could easily be quite wrong), I disagree. My guess would be that the fraction of population turning 16 is a slowly varying function of time compared to the fraction turning 65 (specifically at this point in time, 65 yrs after 1946).mheslep said:...though not 'very' careful, as there are still many more turning 16 every day than 65.
Agreed. The answer, of course, is to wait a few quarters and look back.That's good news, though people should be even more careful with the BLS seasonally adjusted unemployment rate. BLS typically adds a big swag to the January numbers for seasonable adjustment, IIRC last year 1.3 million jobs, just tacked on, to compensate for what they assume will the right correction to the post holiday layoffs. And as mentioned above those that give up and stop looking drive the BLS unemployment figure down.