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.
It is clear that the drop in the unemployment rate to 7.0 percent (since September’s rate of 7.2 percent) is due to a drop in labor force participation and not to a large increase in the number employed. The working age (25–54 years old) employment-to-population ratio in November is 75.9 percent, exactly what it was in September.
The Labor Force Participation rate is unchanged for 25 to 54 year olds...at least unemployed people have lost unemployment benefits so they aren't considered "unemployed" anymore despite still not having a job!
This is great news, unemployment at a 5 year low, long ways to go but very positive indicator.
It's really not all that positive, for two reasons:
1. The jobs that a significant portion of people are accepting out of desperation are low-wage "McJobs" that you can't survive on, so they're still on food stamps.
2. U3 unemployment measure understates employment because it only considers those who are actively looking for work; so discouraged searchers who drop out of the hunt cause the rate to go down as much as people who find work.
It's really not all that positive, for two reasons:
1. The jobs that a significant portion of people are accepting out of desperation are low-wage "McJobs" that you can't survive on, so they're still on food stamps.
2. U3 unemployment measure understates employment because it only considers those who are actively looking for work; so discouraged searchers who drop out of the hunt cause the rate to go down as much as people who find work.
AND the labor participation rate for 25 to 54 year olds remained the same...we are at an all time low dating back 30 years in this regard.
But...we don't count people as unemployed if their unemployment benefits run out despite still not having a job AND we count people as employed if they mow someones yard for 1 hour a week...SO POP THE CHAMPAGNE!
That's why Clinton had a balanced budget and a surplus. Imagine what could happen if BHO had the same.
What's happened is that the deficit has fallen for several years running, the federal govt has shrunk, and Dubya's mismanaged middle east fiascos are being throttled down so that they don't add trillions more debt to the trillions they've already rung up.
Yet Pubs whimper and whine after running up record deficits on their watch while setting the stage for the Great Recession with their voodoo tax cuts/trickle down/deregulation nonsense.
What's happened is that the deficit has fallen for several years running, the federal govt has shrunk, and Dubya's mismanaged middle east fiascos are being throttled down so that they don't add trillions more debt to the trillions they've already rung up.
Yet Pubs whimper and whine after running up record deficits on their watch while setting the stage for the Great Recession with their voodoo tax cuts/trickle down/deregulation nonsense.
#1 If the Fed allowed interest rates to rise to historic averages of the past few decades, the interest on our national debt would soar and we would be back to 1 Trillion Dollar a year Deficits. The question is, can we continue such high levels of QE to keep the interest rate down so Obama appears better and Hillary gets dumped on?
#2 Bush stinks. But you are a fool if you think it is all his fault. Housing bubble started on Clinton's watch. Clinton and the GOP repealed Glass-Stegall. Clinton and GOP put in place NAFTA. Clinton hammered China into the WTO and outsourcing skyrocketed. Clinton never had a true surplus where the national debt shrunk over the course of a Fiscal Year. Reagan did some poor things too. ETC...
If the unemployment numbers had risen there would be at least 10 threads started already by Conservatives trumpeting the fact. But when the unemployment number falls, it's a meaningless number. You guys are so predictable you're boring.
And when the unemployment rate fell to under 5% under G.W. Bush, liberals were claiming the economy was "terrible!" Liberals are so predictable, they're boring!
I don't understand though..... we have 101 million working age americans classified as not in the workforce... Could it be that the government is playing games with the numbers???
Government playing games with numbers?? Never. They care about us too much to do such a thing.
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 25 days ago)
11,780 posts, read 5,792,331 times
Reputation: 14201
So glad that the unemployment figure is down - right! Tell that to the 30 worker's that just got laid off at my husband's plant - tell that to the 20+ friends or family who can't find jobs - thank goodness they either live at home with their parents or their spouses work - tell that to the residents of Detroit which is now facing bankruptcy or the city worker's who will loose their pensions. These numbers are so skewed but if Obama says it's so ( or his cohorts) it must be! Praise the lord.
How many predicted the economic, stock market, and housing recoveries?
More to the point though, their track record is a WHOLE better than that of you wingnuts.
Ken
70% of the jobs added during the Obama administration have been part time jobs. In the face of that, gloating about Obama's track record looks foolish.
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.
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.
