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.
and the chart actually comes as a result of full time employment..
People are still earning less, at which point full time income, would be even worse given they are, according to you, working more hours, but making even less.
The chart shows jack and feces about what people ARE earning.
Try again. Then explain it to WK.
Further, reread my posts and tfa. Wages rose 2.5% this year, which is likely a bit over 'inflation'
If the minimum wage had followed the progress from 1968, it would have been $26 an hour now. Instead it is a paltry $7.25. It was almost $11 in inflation adjusted terms in 1968. In the 50s, Republican presidents used to boast about supporting higher minimum wages and strengthening the unions. Then in the mid-70s they decided together with many Democrats that they should change from a political party to becoming stooges of the donor class of a globalist elite who undermines the middle class and the sovereignty of America.
Meaningless, considering we whine now about offshored jobs.. Imagine how many more would be there if it was $26 an hour..
In the face of global fears, the U.S. economy is still gaining speed.
American employers added 292,000 jobs in December. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney predicted 211,000 jobs would be added.
For all of 2015, the economy added 2.65 million jobs, the second best year of jobs gains since 1999
The unemployment rate stayed at 5% for the third straight month. That's near what most economists consider "full employment." Unemployment is down by half from its peak of 10
Nothing is good to some people, but its best since 1999.
You are exactly right. I'm not jumping for joy and I don't think things are wonderful for most working Americans, but I can not understand those folks who are claiming the economy is terrible or the "real" unemployment rate is 30%. Things have significantly improved since January of 2009.
How do you get that the US gaining jobs "is not good?"
I think the main concern (my concern for sure) is that all the banter about "Added 5 million jobs!" tends to be a popular smoke and mirrors tactic for whichever party is in power.
A.) If you added 5 million jobs but lost 10 million, then politicians and their loyal media outlets will report the 5 million gain without mention of the 10 million lost.
B.) Even if 2.65 million is a net gain, how is that doing compared to population gain? It's not at all unreasonable to assume that the USA added a net of 3 million people to the job force, and if that is the case then the 2.65 million fails to keep pace with population growth.
This is why, properly broken out into ages and demographics, I think Labor Force Participation Rate is a better number to look at. Gains in LFPR for the 16-55 years old age demographic means a higher percentage of the American workforce is actually working. A decrease means less of the American workforce is actually working. It's harder to play games with LFPR.
Whenever somebody says, "We added XXX million jobs over the last X years/months", I tend to keep my grain of salt handy. Dishonesty usually turns up in the numbers when you hear that.
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.
