How Can a Jobs Recovery So Historic Be So Disappointing?

[jrkliny]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

Maybe because the NUMBERS given by the Government are all LIES?

That is what I like....a good conspiracy theory. Sadly the government is too incompetent to even maintain one.

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by J.Thomas

The Atlantic is throwing rocks recently

They nailed it this time.

We have almost reached full employment and we're barely growing

How Can a Jobs Recovery So Historic Be So Disappointing? - The Atlantic

J. Thomas, the Atlantic article’s conclusions are due to their using arithmetic “mean” rather than “median” as statistical descriptions.
The “mean, (i.e. the average) only describes reality if the subject can be graphed as a shape similar to the classic symmetrical “bell curve”. This is seldom if ever the case with national populations’ incomes and it has been increasingly much less the case for the USA.
Using the “median” rather than the “average” generally presents a picture that better reflects reality.

Additionally, (and I'm not contending this is or isn't germane to the Atlantic article), purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is not a constant value. Only statistics adjusted to reflect the dollar’s changing purchasing power can better reflect reality over durations of years.

USA’s other than employment derived incomes have over the past duration of many years been performing much better than our employment derived incomes.
Contending otherwise is nonsensical.

Respectfully, Supposn

[ContrarianEcon]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

odds are it is directed to our resident complainer freemkt

maybe

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth
If an Engineer gets laid off and takes a job bagging groceries then they aren’t "unemployed."
//////////////////////////////////////

Originally Posted by lieqiang

... What else would they be? They might be in an additional group of "underemployed" but there is no rationalization for labeling someone who goes to work every day for a paycheck as unemployed.

Liegiang, we’re “playing” with semantics.
Underemployment is not tracked because it’s so difficult to agree upon what qualifies to be underemployment and to what extent is a person underemployed. But I side with ThatGuyDownSouth on this point.

“Unemployed” is the generally acknowledged extreme case of “underemployed”. Simply because we haven’t agreed upon to what degree is a person underemployed, that does not mean that the concept of underemployment is not valid.

In both circumstances members of our nation’s population are denied the opportunity to contribute all they are capable of and additionally they are denied the opportunity to earn what we should expect to be their worth if they had that opportunity.

Respectfully Supposn

[lieqiang]

Originally Posted by Supposn

Underemployment is not tracked because it’s so difficult to agree upon what qualifies to be underemployment and to what extent is a person underemployed. But I side with ThatGuyDownSouth on this point.

“Unemployed” is the generally acknowledged extreme case of “underemployed”. Simply because we haven’t agreed upon to what degree is a person underemployed, that does not mean that the concept of underemployment is not valid.

Yes, measuring the number of underemployed would be exceedingly difficult since the term itself is subjective. However there is no instance where someone legitimately working for wages should be considered unemployed.

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by lieqiang

Yes, measuring the number of underemployed would be exceedingly difficult since the term itself is subjective. However there is no instance where someone legitimately working for wages should be considered unemployed.

Lieqiang, but we all do agree that underemployment is a real condition that’s detrimental to their nation’s social and economic condition?

Respectfully, Supposn