Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, if it was JUST a .1% decrease for one month you'd be quite right - but you KNOW that's not the case. The EU rate has dropped nearly a full percentage point in the last 3 months - from 9.8 to 9.4 to 9.0. to 8.9. That's a HUGE drop in 3 months. I think it's the fastest decrease over that period of time since 1983 so it's pretty significant.
On top of that the February job creation numbers were the best in several years (leaving aside the temporary jump in job creation that took place last summer during the census).
AND this is ON TOP of all the other encouraging news such as surging factory orders (BIG news on that today), improving retail sales & generally improving consumer sentiment.
ALL in all, things are looking up.
Ken
AGAIN....the BLS revised how it was figuring the data beginning this year.
AGAIN....the BLS revised how it was figuring the data beginning this year.
YEAH - so?
That might well affect the Jan & Feb numbers somewhat (and NO ONE - including YOU - knows by how much). It certainly doesn't affect the HUGE drop in December.
How many new jobs were created in the past three months?
Net: 151,000 in December, 63,000 in January and 192,00 in February - that gives a total of net gain of 406,000 - which is a LOT better than any 3 month period in the last 3 years or so.
How many new jobs were created in the past three months?
I don't know off the top of my head, but I read today that in February the economy created a net gain of 192,000 jobs and jobless claims are at a 2 1/2 year low.
I DID the math, you don't seem to even understand the CONCEPT - so let me lay it out for you AGAIN.
The claim is that prior to 1994 anyone without a job (including those no longer LOOKING) was grouped into ONE category of unemployed and that when the change went into place suddenly those who were no longer LOOKING were no longer counted. Since there is generally about the same amount of folks no longer LOOKING as there are actively LOOKING then IF it was true that in 1994 the folks no longer LOOKING were suddenly not included in the UE rate then that UE rate would suddenly DROP by a ratio reflecting the number of Actively LOOKING vs No Longer LOOKING (in other words the UE rate would be suddenly cut IN HALF).
There IS no such drop because prior to that change the "No Longer LOOKING" folks were NO COUNTED AT ALL.
Ken
Not true.. if people not looking for work were counted before 1994 as being unemployed, and after the changes they were not counted, then anyone with elementary education could figure out this meant a DECREASE in the numbers being counted.. How big of a decrease is not the question because elementary math shows that there IS a decrease.. To pretend that this would reflect a substantial drop is ridiculous because the majority of americans are working.. The numbers of people not working, and change from looking to not looking each month I would suspect is quite small.. People have bills to pay after all.. And considering at the same time people were making the opposite move, from not looking to looking, due to welfare reforms being made, this would negate any going the opposite direction. Even if your imaginary 1/2 of people claim above would be true, which its not.. You are just making up numbers to make an argument that no economists or anyone else would substantiate..
I wonder how many of those now looking for work because their unemployment is running out..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.