US Economy Added 178,000 Jobs in November; Unemployment Rate Drops To 4.6 Percent (washingtonpost.com) 533
The U.S. economy added 178,000 jobs in November, while the unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent from 4.9 percent the previous month, according to new government data released (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source) Friday morning. From a report on the Washington Post: Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News had expected U.S. employers to create 180,000 new jobs last month -- roughly in line with the average number added in the first 11 months of the year. The first release after a contentious election in which the candidates disputed the health and direction of the economy, the data showed a job market that is continuing to steadily strengthen from the recession. The unemployment rate fell to levels not seen since August 2007, before a bubble in the U.S. housing market began to burst. The fall was driven partly by the creation of new jobs, and partly by people retiring and otherwise leaving the labor force. The labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.7 percent. Average hourly earnings declined by 3 cents to $25.89. The decrease pared back large gains seen in October, but over the year average hourly earnings are still up 2.5 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said.
Thank God (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhhh! Don't bring that up! Let them whine, it's all they have left.
Despite Trump (Score:2, Funny)
Dear America,
Brace yourself, this might be the last story before "Despite Trump" begins to be added to every positive story by the bitter left wing.
Sincerely,
The UK, despite Brexit.
OK, now pull the other one (Score:3)
The unemployment rate fell to levels not seen since August 2007, before a bubble in the U.S. housing market began to burst. The fall was driven partly by the creation of new jobs, and partly by people retiring and otherwise leaving the labor force. The labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.7 percent.
So uh, inflation is still a thing (at a fairly steady rate) and retirement plans have imploded and people have less savings than ever, so they should be having to work longer, right? Unless those people are actually dropping dead, a reduction in the labor force participation rate at this time equals an increase in the actual unemployment rate, as defined by the number of people seeking employment. People who are partially employed and either going farther into debt or neglecting their health because they can't afford deductibles and/or time off (or both) are not only a growing segment of the population but also not represented in the unemployment rate.
Last I checked, a million new jobs hadn't made any improvement in the number of people seeking work. This is really the only relevant statistic of this bunch, and it's not presented here. Hmmmmmm.
Re: (Score:2)
a reduction in the labor force participation rate at this time equals an increase in the actual unemployment rate, as defined by the number of people seeking employment.
4.6% unemployment in November 2016 is at 62.7% labor force participation rate. At a LFPR of 66.4%--the peak rate at 2007--that would reflect 4.87% unemployment. Comparing to Obama's peak 10% unemployment at 65% labor force participation rate, it'd be 4.77%.
Last I checked, a million new jobs hadn't made any improvement in the number of people seeking work.
A million new jobs and 1.5 million new people is a reduction in proportion of unemployed people and an increase in effectiveness and stability of economy. An economy with 1 million people seeking work and 300,000 employed is collapsing and will experi
Re:OK, now pull the other one (Score:4, Insightful)
a reduction in the labor force participation rate at this time equals an increase in the actual unemployment rate, as defined by the number of people seeking employment
Actually, it's nowhere near that simple. For example, my wife is a "stay-at-home mom". Thus she's on the "bad" side of the labor force participation rate. She's doing this because 1) we think it's better for our younger-than-school-age kids, and 2) she can't make enough to pay for the daycare we would have to buy.
When the BLS measures the "unemployment rate", they actually produce several different statistics. These statistics are produced by surveying households, not just people receiving unemployment benefits. The number printed in newspaper headlines is U3. The people you are talking about when you say "actual unemployment rate" are in U6. Here's a graph of U6. [stlouisfed.org]
If you're going to claim a low employment/population ratio always demonstrates an awful economy, you're going to have to explain why the 1950s/1960s "boom" had a lower employment/population ratio than we have today. [stlouisfed.org]
Re:OK, now pull the other one (Score:5, Informative)
The numbers of "stay-at-home moms" includes women who are doing it because they cannot find work.
That is the difference between employment/population ratio and U6.
Stay-at-home moms who want to be stay at home moms are in the employment/population ratio. They are not included in U6.
Stay-at-home moms who would work if they could find a job are in the employment/population ratio. They are included in U6.
You are not understanding the statistics you are looking at, and then attempting to draw conclusions that fit your personal beliefs.
Average income down, fewer people working (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The average income doesn't represent income as buying power. That statistic is particularly interesting to me, but not to everyone else: nobody cares that they spend half as much of their income on all the shit they used to buy, and now load up on new stuff they couldn't afford before; what they care about is that the number of dollars hasn't gotten visibly-bigger. If people were naive to inflation, we could just instate 10% inflation per year and tell them they're getting richer, and they'd believe it
Re:Average income down, fewer people working (Score:4, Informative)
The average income doesn't represent income as buying power
Average income went down, and inflation is not negative. Therefore, "buying power" did not go up.
Re: (Score:3)
No, average incomes are not down.
Wait a year (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, with a greater population 187k is considered great. A sign that the economy is truly booming.
Wait a year, when Trump is president, and anything under 200,000k will be considered anemic again.
Remember we've always been at war with Eastasia.
Re:Wait a year (Score:4, Insightful)
When Bush was president 200,000 new jobs was considered anemic as it didn't cover the rise in working age adults.
Currently we need 215-220K per month growth to remain even with population growth. Everything else is a loss, and the lies are covered up with the "discouraged worker" nonsense.
Don't be played for a fool by official propaganda - the math will set you free. Once you understand that this drain on the economy is the real cost of endless war, it starts to make quite a bit more sense (and it's also much more depressing). But, "hey, the unemployment rate is down*!" so go back to soda pop and television. #include officerbarbrady
Re: (Score:3)
the bush number was in a slowing but steady economy not recovering from a recession .
By what metric? This particular event had been brewing for years, and didn't burst until he was about 6 months into office. Sure put the hurt on our particular industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
DAMN YOU OBAMA! (Score:2)
Freaking Obama hoarding the jobs until the end just so he can make the GOP look bad. SEE SEE!!!!! His Alien brain control device from Area 51 is unfair!
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Funny)
Didn't take long, now he's been mentioned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Funny)
Are you kidding? The War on Christmas hasn't been going well for us under Baraq Hussein Soetoro. We need the smartest men and women in greeter positions to use their technical expertise to strategically deploy Santas, pine trees, striped poles, the virgin goddess, and the other holy pagan symbols of Reichsführer Jesus! Only Walmart greeters have the boots-on-the-ground experience to prevent the gay Mooooooooslims from outlawing Christmas with their highly sophisticated containment strategies based on the latest engineering advancements!
They'll keep fighting, and they'll win!
Re:Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't the number of people who are not working a more important number? Last I looked that number was up to 95 million people.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]
The unemployment rate is just a distraction.
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't the number of people who are not working a more important number?
No. Because there are some people who are not "working" and do not want a job. The retired, independently wealthy, people caring for their children or elderly family members, etc.
When the BLS runs their survey for "unemployment", they produce several different statistics. The one that gets printed in headlines is called U3.
People who would work if they could find a job, or are working fewer hours than they would like, are included in U6. Here's U6. [stlouisfed.org]
You are talking about the employment/population ratio. A high employment/population ratio is not necessarily a "good" economy, and a low one is not necessarily a "bad" economy. Here's the employment/population ratio [stlouisfed.org]. You'll note that during the economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s, the employment/population ratio was lower than it is today.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Why people like to compare past households with present day households to suggest the economy was better in the 50's, 60's is incomprehensible. They're apples and oranges. The economy was not better, the standard of living was lower. At no time in the history of the United States has there been a time when the average citizen has been as materially wealthy as they are now. We don't build 1000sq. ft. mid-century modest homes, we build 2000+ sq. ft. McMansions. We don't drive those unreliable, antiquated tanks on wheels, nor is there just one per family. Today the average passenger car would be seen as fit for the 1/10th of the 1% back then. Today the average person owns vastly more cloths and of that those of materials that would have been exclusive to the elite. Imagine sitting down in the evening to a 15" manual-tune grayscale VHF tube TV the size of a significant chest of drawers today. People back then couldn't even comprehend the existence of the personal electronics the average person owns today let alone possessing them themselves. The quality and kinds of food readily available and affordable today would be seen as scandalously extravagant. The service industry of which everyone presently avails themselves was bit a tiny mote of what it is today. These comparisons can be made for nearly all facets of life with great similarity of result.
To suggest that people would be better off with the economy of the 50's and 60's is preposterous. If we lived now as we did then, then Walmart would absolutely be the employer of bourgeoisie.
Re: (Score:3)
The apparent lack of familial issues was merely an illusion. As soon as divorce became a realistic option the numbers of broken homes exploded as victimized women fled abusive relationships.
Much of the troubles among minority communities, especially African Americans, came with the war on drugs. That single policy has systematically destroyed entire generations, and not by accident.
The internet and modern 24 hour cycle media can be thanked for the impression that we're more stressed and divided than ever. C
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a relevant comparison to today, with real salaries significantly smaller and most households requiring 2 jobs to achieve that standard of living
Actually, the point is people focusing on employment/population ratio alone are missing an enormous number of confounding factors. Employment/population ratio is only a useful statistic when combined with a whole lot of other statistics to try and tease out whatever it is you are attempting to analyze.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because these numbers don't include the people who have given up looking for jobs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office, regardless of which measure you look at. So Obama didn't really "fix" anything. Here's an article from CNBC where they explain the differences in the various measures of unemployment and why the number mentioned in the OP isn't terribly meaningful.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/02... [cnbc.com]
Re:That can't be right (Score:5, Insightful)
So Obama didn't really "fix" anything
Well, that all depends on what the rest of the world was doing. The US doesn't exist in a vacuum. If things get only a little bit worse in the US, but much worse in the global economy, then the president has done a good job.
Likewise if things get only a little bit better in the US, but the world economy gets a lot better, then the president has done a poor job even if things have improved.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that all depends on what the rest of the world was doing. The US doesn't exist in a vacuum. If things get only a little bit worse in the US, but much worse in the global economy, then the president has done a good job.
That's not actually true, if the rest of the world's economy is an amplified following function of the U.S. economy. Which it is, since the U.S. dollar is the defacto world reserve currency. Yes, there are other reserve currencies, but as long as the vast majority of oil exchanges are denominated in U.S. dollars, it's the only commodity backed currency. That makes it the benchmark.
Re:That can't be right (Score:5, Informative)
In what world? [wikimedia.org]
Want to use U-6 unemployment? Nope, not that one either [unemploymentdata.com].
Obama inherited the largest economic recession since the Great Depression. And the US is now out of it. Now you can argue over whether someone else could have done it faster or not. But let's not lie about the facts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't have a choice but to lie, because otherwise they have to admit Obama's eight years were eight years of generally positive economic growth, and that means they elected a buffoon who was simply inventing nonsense claims about America's economic woes. When people rationalize away facts, they are emotionally incapable of admitting that in many cases, so will simple ignore anything that confirms those much hated facts.
The statistics don't matter to the Trump supporters. The statistics can't matter to
Re:That can't be right (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's consider just one statistic - workforce participation as a percentage of the population. [tradingeconomics.com] Around the year 2000 it was about 67%, it has been fairly steadily declining since 2008 from about 67% to 63%...
In other words, 4% less of the working age population is employed.
I'll just mention in passing things like the majority of newly-created jobs being part-time [advisorperspectives.com], wages being stagnant for the last 8 years [npr.org], and a national debt that has increased from an "unpatriotic" $11 Trillion under President Bush [youtube.com] to nearly $20 Trillion after 8 years of President Obama [thebalance.com]...
That is what passes for "generally positive economic growth"?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, according to your own link, it has been steadily declining since around 2000 (so I'm sure that's Obama's fault).
Could it have something to do with population changes? Like Baby Boomers retiring? Or more stay-at-home moms?
Re:That can't be right (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone else is choosing to be in school, being a stay at home parent, or whatever other reason. Workforce participation is a gauge of a changing society, not a measure of economic strength.
When the recession hit my husband chose to go to grad school. He couldn't find a job where we live so he went back to school. When we had kids, he chose to become a stay at home dad. It would have been too expensive to pay for child care.
To say that going back to school or becoming a stay at home parent is "changing society" and has nothing to do with the economy is a bald faced lie. Those decisions are directly correlated to the economy. Gad school admissions stats are directly tied to unemployment. Our friends with stay at home parents have similar reasons to us: child care costs more than the one parent would earn so they stay home. My sister in law seriously considered quitting her job for a while due to the costs of child care. She was barely breaking even. My sons preschool teacher just quit so she could stay home and take care of a relative. People remove themselves from the workforce because the cost of working is more than the pay.
And the repercussions of that decision to be a stay at home parent are incredibly far reaching. When the kids all go to school, what then? After you've been out of the workforce for 10+ years?
In case you were wondering, full time (5 days a week 8-5) care at one of the day cares near me is ~$600 a week. $2400 a month. $28,800 a year. If you have two kids that's $57,600 a year. Staying home with the kids is very much an economic decision, not a societal one.
Re: (Score:3)
When the recession hit my husband chose to go to grad school. He couldn't find a job where we live so he went back to school. When we had kids, he chose to become a stay at home dad. It would have been too expensive to pay for child care. To say that going back to school or becoming a stay at home parent is "changing society" and has nothing to do with the economy is a bald faced lie.
So if your household was part of the 60,000 households selected for the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), he would be listed as unemployed under most likely U4-6 unemployment numbers. If he said he would like to be working instead of going to grad school, he would count as a discouraged worker. U6 also includes people working part time when they would like to work full time. Although he wouldn't show up in the U3 unemployment figures, which is by far the most common number discussed.
Try not to accuse
Re:That can't be right (Score:5, Insightful)
Talking about debt isn't helping your case any. Here's the deficit (change in debt) from year to year: Link [businessinsider.com]
Why is that Republicans keep blowing the budget? Well, let's look at the case of Bush [bnet.com]. Wow, whodathunkit, massive tax breaks to top income earners skyrockets debt, news at 11! And yes, having the government hawk itself into debt is great for the short term strength of the stock market.
Re, debt outlook under Trump: absolutely not if he enacts his "Bush Tax Cuts+++ [crfb.org] proposal.
Re: (Score:3)
It's true, but you'd think we'd have had a much faster, better "recovery," given the staggering amount of debt used to prop up the economy during the Obama administration. Bush inherited a recession, too; the internet bubble was bursting and he had to deal with 911, he spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave and I was extremely angry with how much extra debt he saddled us with - think of how I feel about the Obama administration, and for what? Stagnant wages and a recovery so slow it would have happene
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:That can't be right (Score:5, Informative)
Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office
Nope. U3 in January 2009 was 7.9% U3 today is 4.6%. Here's a graph of U3 during Obama's time in office. [stlouisfed.org]
The Employment-population ratio [stlouisfed.org] is down significantly, but that doesn't necessarily indicate people who want work can't find it. Things like "retirement" and "wages that don't cover daycare" come in to play.
Re:That can't be right (Score:5, Insightful)
Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office
Nope. U3 in January 2009 was 7.9% U3 today is 4.6%. Here's a graph of U3 during Obama's time in office. [stlouisfed.org]
The Employment-population ratio [stlouisfed.org] is down significantly, but that doesn't necessarily indicate people who want work can't find it. Things like "retirement" and "wages that don't cover daycare" come in to play.
Please stop using facts. They don't apply in today's world of the alt-truth.
Re: (Score:3)
The U3 numbers are a poor indication of the true employment situation,. but has been the consistent measurement for decades... The more accurate indication is the U6 number:
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you understand that the workforce participation ratio only includes so-called "working-age" Americans and excludes retirement age Americans? [bls.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the downward trend he had to battle. Things aren't stationary if the government doesn't move, and thus when the new president takes office things are continuing based off of the previous administration's policies as well as international, national, and local markets. It's the trend that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are not. You're talking about the U6 rate and it was at 14.9% and today it is at 9.7%
http://www.macrotrends.net/137... [macrotrends.net]
Re:That can't be right (Score:5, Informative)
We need another moderation choice called "Inaccurate".
Even your own link refutes what you are saying. Obama was sworn in on January 20th 2009, so even if you foolishly believe Obama's policies affected the unemployment rate on day 1, his first U6 unemployment numbers (for Feb '09) were at 15.2%. That is compared to 9.3% in November 2016. And if you even give Obama's new policies six months to start affecting the economy, Obama more realistically started with a 16.7% U6 unemployment.
By any measure, unemployment is far better than it was when Obama took office.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:That can't be right (Score:4, Insightful)
And your point is? Obama did not become President until January 2009. U6 rose sharply during 2008.
Re: (Score:3)
While in general I support the ACAs insurance exchanges as they allowed many people to try their own business whereas earlier they could not because of preexisting medical conditions which made them ineligible, there are many things wrong with the ACA.
The problem in US is the out of control medical costs and a culture of throwing everything at a medical problem which can not be fixed. 5% of medical users - mostly the born defectives and the dying - who consume 80% of the healthcare budget.
Insurance just ten
Re: (Score:2)
That's because these numbers don't include the people who have given up looking for jobs.
And it never has. What's the point of comparing apples to oranges?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually Congress will have to repeal them first, then he gets to sign it into law. It might take a while for that to play out.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually Congress will have to repeal them first, then he gets to sign it into law. It might take a while for that to play out.
Trump will issue a series of executive orders to make America great again. Won't be long before 92 million Americans are back to work.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope he's got better sense than President Obama had.
I'm expecting Trump to abuse executive orders once he discovers that a democracy doesn't work the same way as a corporation, especially if Democrats used the filibuster in the Senate the same way that the Republicans did to obstruct Obama.
Those executive orders caused a lot of grief with people. It's part of what fueled the "Trump Train."
Even though historically Obama has issued fewer executive orders than many of his predecessors. If the Republicans weren't obstructing his policies from beginning to end, he wouldn't have to rely on executive orders to get things done.
It's part of what fueled the "Trump Train."
Soon to become the "Trump Betrayal" as
Re: (Score:2)
So, your going to be spouting this stat for the next 4 years as well, since not everyone in the country needs or wants to work.
That's why the laws need to be repealed. The only way to make America great again is to get EVERYONE WORKING again, including children, retirees and slackers. Trump will add 92 million jobs!
Re: (Score:3)
Err...what's wrong with kids/students working?
Child labor laws prevents kids as young as five-year-old from working 12 hour shifts seven days a week.
I have been working a job of some sort since I was 16yrs old.
But child labor laws prevented you from working for 11 years. You probably didn't work 12 hours shifts for seven days a week.
No one that is able bodied should be given a free ride, hell yes get out there and work.
All those trust fund babies need to get off their lazy asses and work in the coal mines.
Re: (Score:2)
Retire people are not going to go back to work
Actually they often do. It's happened after both the 2000-2001 and 2008-2009 recessions, for example, when someone's nest egg gets shrunk. And I don't think it's a win to force them out of the job market altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with looking at the number of jobs added is that you have to consider population growth.
The US population grew by about 3 million people from 2015 to 2016, which comes out to about 250,000/month. Adding only 180,000 jobs per month when your population grows by 250,000 people per month is not exactly sustainable.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you saying we should be on a toddler-based economy?
Re: (Score:2)
The US population grew by about 3 million people from 2015 to 2016, which comes out to about 250,000/month. Adding only 180,000 jobs per month when your population grows by 250,000 people per month is not exactly sustainable.
If your labor force participation rate is 60% and 95% of that is employed, then you need to add 142,500 new jobs to account for a population growth of 250,000 to maintain current unemployment rates. Adding 180,000 will eventually lead to a labor shortage and an economic collapse because unemployment will be too low.
Re:That can't be right (Score:5, Insightful)
"The labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.7 percent. Average hourly earnings declined by 3 cents to $25.89."
It's not really as rosy as the headline makes it seem. Cherry picking numbers works for both sides in DC.
Re: (Score:3)
High labor force participation rates indicate a poor society in which people are desperate for income.,
Peak labor force participation rate was 2007 at 66.4%, 4.6% unemployment; unemployment peaked at 10% in 2009, 65% labor force participation rate. Adjusting these, that 10% unemployment rate in a 66.4% LFPR world would reflect 10.21%.
4.6% unemployment in November 2016 is at 62.7% LFPR. At a LFPR of 66.4%, that would reflect 4.87% unemployment. Comparing to Obama's peak 10% at 65%, it'd be 4.77%.
Th
Re: (Score:3)
High labor force participation rates indicate a poor society in which people are desperate for income.,
Did you really intend to say that? Seriously. A high labor force participation rate indicates that people are not only active in the economy which is very good thing, and it also means people are actively taking care of themselves and not relying on others.
The thing about labor force participation rate is it includes discouraged workers and workers who otherwise want or would like but can't get jobs. Everyone who isn't in the labor force doesn't want to be there and won't magically take up a job if you hand them one--which means they're also not welfare recipients, since welfare goes to unemployed labor force.
I don't even know where to begin with this statement. Labor force participation should include ALL workers...period. Just because you are "discouraged" doesn't mean you shouldn't work. Sorry, if you can work, you should work...PERIOD. For most of us, sur
Re: (Score:2)
Silly you, it's because Trump got elected. We were losing jobs until election day.
All Hail God Emporor Trump
Re: (Score:2)
He said it was okay for him. He's a star. Hell now he's the President Elect!
Re:That can't be right (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, in 2013, it's estimated that undocumented immigrants paid $11.64 billion in state and local taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
[...] doesn't have documentation about his existence or tax status.
I once had a roommate of questionable immigration status (i.e., when the cops asked about him, I've told them that my roommates and I had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy). He told me that he had paid $3,000 for identity papers in Los Angeles that permitted him to work legally in the U.S. Of course, that was before 9/11.
Re: (Score:3)
You know those numbers include MILLIONS of people here illegally, and not paying a dime in taxes right?
When I had a bout of unemployment in 2014, I've discovered that a C. RAMOS used my Social Security number to work under, contributing to my Social Security account and inflating my unemployment benefit award. I had to notify Social Security, unemployment office and IRS to set the record straight. Social Security withdrew the contributed money, unemployment office reduced my unemployment benefits by $50 per week, and the IRS gave me a PIN for filing my taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget my favorite: "Three or more years in each of the last three positions."
A recruiter contacted me for a desktop support job at a law firm in 2014. My resume was one of 20 that got submitted. The hiring manager rejected all of them for "lacking tenure," as none had the required three or more years in each of the last three positions. The recruiter was stunned and explained to the hiring manager that everyone worked short-term contracts after the Great Recession. I've worked 20+ different contr
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how you meant that? Sarcasm? All the broken and maimed bodies streaming back from the Middle East sure doesn't seem all that peaceful. As for prosperity, well some people have done well the last 8 years and a lot not so much. That's really not all President Obama's fault although I think he contributed to it.
Re:Labor Participation Rate, the Unmentionable... (Score:5, Informative)
People who stop looking are in UE4, which includes discouraged workers. U4 is 5.0.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Labor Participation Rate vs Unemployment is not just about people who stopped looking for a job, it is also about people who don't need a job, so it is not a particularly better metric.
Unemployment rate has always been "underreporting" by a margin that is open to debate. If this margin is relatively stable throughout the years, then unemployment rate is a good *comparative* tool. Do you have any sources that say that the current unemployment rate is more severely underreporting unemployment and thus n
Re: (Score:2)
"What about all of those people who have been out of work for over a year, and stopped looking?"
A bunch of them are retired, or decided to be homemakers?
Also, there's a limit to how much you can say "the job market is bad" because some people have stopped looking for work. Even just talking about those who stopped looking for work because the economy is bad, the job market could improve, and if they're still not looking for work, they're still not going to find a job.
Re: (Score:2)
"They don't exist. Shut up."
There is more than one measure of "unemployment". The number printed in the headlines is U3. The people you are talking about are counted in U6. Here's a graph. [stlouisfed.org]
Re:Labor Participation Rate, the Unmentionable... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US baby boom [wikipedia.org] occurred between 1946 and 1964.
Add 18-25 years, and a baby boom becomes a 'employee boom'.
Add 60-65 years, and a baby boom becomes a 'retiree boom'.
The workforce participation graph [tradingeconomics.com] is just a chart of the lifecycle of 'baby boomers'. It really has fuck all to do with who's siting in the oval office.
Furthermore, it's a good sign for the economy that labor participation is falling. It means that 'boomers' are choosing to retire and leave jobs for younger workers to fill, as demonstrated by the falling U3 unemployment rate. The downside is that those retirees are putting more burden on the Social Security and Medicare programs, but we've known that would happen for the past fifty years.
Re:Not much good (Score:4, Interesting)
I notice you produce not even a link to your 'strong evidence'. Apparently you don't think it is all that strong?
Re:Fake news (Score:5, Insightful)
As usual, the number doesn't count the 'statistically employed' - people who've been out of work for long and have given up looking for work as a result
As it never has. So you're interested in comparing apples to oranges now?
Re: (Score:3)
http://portalseven.com/employm... [portalseven.com]
What is U6 unemployment rate ?
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to
Re: (Score:3)
If it is a liberal shithole, why do so many Libertarians and Conservatives frequent it, and make so much noise?
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is that a lot of people who have no expertise in a given field believe that they're unrelated qualifications make them an expert.
There's a name for that, it's called a "fallacious appeal to authority", and as you make pretty clear unintentionally, having a higher education does not confer some special ability to make declarations on a field for which you have no particular expertise.
Re: (Score:3)
No, what you're saying is that people with no expertise in a field feel that they have an ability to critique a rather specialized field they have no expertise in.
It's a fallacious appeal to authority, full stop.
Re:Fake news (Score:4, Informative)
* presuming (as I do) that GW is real, but not solely attributable to AGW, no one is willing to give a percentage breakdown on cause
OT, but I'll have a go. Generally what we have over the last century or so is a secular warming trend (from greenhouse gasses) with fluctuations from various other factors including volcanoes, aerosols, solar output, internal variability, etc. That secular warming trend is strong enough now that studies find most, (or possibly more than all)) of the warming over the last 50 years can be attributed to greenhouse gasses. See for example Tett et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2004, Stone et al. 2007, Lean and Rind 2008, Huber and Knutti 2011, Gillett et al. 2012, Wigley and Santer 2012, and Jones et al. 2013.
Re:Fake news (Score:5, Informative)
During Obama's term, 20 million more people have been added to the labor force.
And U6, which includes those who are 'no longer considered' has gone down a lot under Obama as well.
It's not that hard to look up..
http://portalseven.com/employm... [portalseven.com]
Re:Trump! (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like how he gave Carrier $7M in tax breaks and now they're building a factory for the 1300 jobs they shipped south of the border?
That kind of great?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like how he gave Carrier $7M in tax breaks and now they're building a factory for the 1300 jobs they shipped south of the border?
President-elect Trump was quite clear:
Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences. Not gonna happen. It's not gonna happen.
So if you think you're going to skedaddle without the government offering you money to stay, you have another think coming. Consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe I should threaten to leave.
Can I get just a $500k tax break? I'm not proud, I'd stay for that
Re:Trump! (Score:5, Funny)
That's true. It's actually a 2,600 job net change. -1300 for US, +1300 for Mexico. +$7m for carrier in tax breaks, -$2m for Carrier to build factory in MX.
USA! USA! USA!
Lock her up! Wait, what?
Re:Trump! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, only 800 jobs are staying.
And if Hillary did the *exact* same deal, she would have been ripped for weeks on tax breaks and 1300 jobs going to Mexico.
But Trump, who apparently likes government to pick winners (while complaining when Obama did same), crows about it all day long.
Re: (Score:3)
They never do.
The funniest/saddest part is this:
'Tax & spend' is much more fiscally conservative than 'just spend'.
Yet Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative. They close their eyes when the R gov't spends & spends. Like it did under Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and Reagan.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Trump! (Score:5, Informative)
In stark contrast, Obama bailed out GM, kept all 1.5 million jobs, got them to pay back the loans. With interest.
But yay for Carrier not shipping ALL their jobs to Mexico and providing a blueprint for every other company to milk the 'conservative' new government. Can Apple get a $1T tax break?
GM still owes $11B (Score:3)
https://projects.propublica.or... [propublica.org]
"Below is a list of all companies that failed to repay their bailout money. These transactions are final and will never result in a profit for taxpayers."
BAILOUT FUNDS OUTGOING BAILOUT FUNDS, INCOMING /Net Outstanding Disbursed Returned Dividends + Interest Warrants Other Proceeds
Name Type State Profi
General Motors Auto Company MI -$11,393,681,666 $50,744,648,329 $38,656,806,062 $694,160,600 $0 $0
CIT Group Bank (Public)
Re: (Score:3)
See, I said GM paid back all their loans. Not TARP as a whole, which is what you're referring to.
And they did:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/... [factcheck.org]
"Yes, it’s true that GM paid back its loan from the Treasury Department, in full, ahead of schedule."
Re: Trump! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But the reality is total number of workers no longer in the work force, which is 95,055,000. Really, 50% unemployment?
Employment/population ratio does not work like you are trying to claim. Because lots of people do not work because they don't want to and do not have to. Students, taking care of loved ones, independently wealthy, retired, disabled, etc.
Here's the employment/population ratio for the last several decades. [stlouisfed.org] You note it never got remotely close to 100%, even during economic booms.
Re:95.1 Million Americans Not In The Labor Force (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. There are 6 unemployment statistics. The one that shows up in newspaper headlines is U3. U6 covers people who would take a job if they could find one, or want to work more hours than they already are. Here's U6. [stlouisfed.org] You'll note it is also down.
To get a better idea of just how misleading that headline from Zerohedge is, here's the employment/population ratio for the last few decades. [stlouisfed.org] That is down from it's peak, but well above where it was during the economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s. You'll also note we have never gotten remotely close to 100%, yet the breathless story from Zerohedge implies something is wrong with less than 100%.
There are lots of reasons someone does not have a paid job. Some of the most common are retirement, going to school, and caring for a loved one. And they are all "not in the labor force".
Re: (Score:3)
Guess what? BLS doesn't only count U3. In fact, they have a statistic called U6 which covers the people you are claiming BLS ignores. The Shadowstats article you linked even talks about U6, so it's kinda odd you forgot about it when making your post.
Here's U6. [stlouisfed.org]
And the owners of Shadowstats would like to thank you for your efforts at generating more subscribers to their website.