The so-called participation rate, which indicates the share of the working-age people in the labor force, held at 62.8 percent. This tells me that the number of people entering the workforce minus those leaving the workforce basically equaled the 288,000 (does this sound right?).
Uh huh adjust for population and its flat. Ill wait for labor participation rate comes. usually lets wind out of sails.
Oh and how many additional government leeches were added by caring and housing for illegals?
Again - I'm not optimistic
B-b-but he is a community organizer!! Why is Obama getting credit for this?!!?
Because he happens to be President right now. Because I think it's fair to say that even his supporters would struggle if they had to cite particular Obama policies which would be the source of job creation. Certainly not the "shovel ready projects" he cited or the stimulus unless you think it's just now having its impact years later. Maybe his 99 weeks of unemployment which ended a while back is now kicking in and driving job growth? Or maybe the gift-wrapping lots of money to states to pay for their wasteful spending? Perhaps bailing out the automakers to the tunes of billions so an Italian company could buy one of the Big 3? Or perhaps "free" birth control for all is generating hundreds of thousands of new positions?
Which Obama policy, specifically, is supposedly responsible for the drop in unemployment to which he is receiving credit for?
As long as everyone admits that if Obama is not responsible for the good, that we dont give credit to the many others before him that helped put us in this mess. I agree that much of the policies did little to nothing at best, I also understand that his actions are really no different.
Unemployment are those who do not have a job, but are still trying to find one. Participation rate is the total % of the population working relative to those in the pool of working age.
The report would then show that those who were "unemployed" found jobs, but we still dont see those who gave up coming back into the labor pool. Either because they have enough wealth to not work, or are on government assistance and dont need to work currently
the biggest chunk of unemployed is the under 25 set. they really don't fall into either of your categories.
there's probably another good sized chunk of people for whom daycare would eat up too much of what are still very low wages for many people, so the extra net dollars aren't worth it.
Nah, can't be true. The 'poor' in this country are doing great. Just look at all of the cheap stuff that they can buy*
*once theyget a job that pays enough for them to afford itstop doing drugs, getting tattoos, buying TVs and new iPhones.
Nice print.
What's not getting much press is the breakdown of the job additions.
Full Time= -523k
Part Time= +799k
Where did you find those numbers? Are you serious?
If true, then wow is all I can say.
If that's the case, I guess the McService jobs are replacing good paying jobs faster than I had thought. Too bad.
Nice print.
What's not getting much press is the breakdown of the job additions.
Full Time= -523k
Part Time= +799k
288k job additions look MUCH better before you attribute that gain to Part Time jobs added at the expense of full time jobs being lost. Breakdown for the year thus far is roughly 1 million full time job additions with remainder of job additions coming from part time job creation.
Labor force participation remains at 30+ year lows and it's not due to retirees....
About time we start using u-6 or another method to headline the job market, 6.1% UE is not a good indicator.
Real wage growth continues to be basically 0 when using official inflation numbers. 2% annual increase in wages is roughly offset by official inflation of just under 2%. For all those who live in the real world and not a manipulated CPI world it means actually buying power is going down on the wage front.
Where did you find those numbers? Are you serious?
If true, then wow is all I can say.
If that's the case, I guess the McService jobs are replacing good paying jobs faster than I had thought. Too bad.
It's not so much what Obama has done as since the original stimulus he's been quite constrained, it's what he hasn't done. There have been several large pushes for wide-ranging austerity that he has for the most part resisted. It's a big part of why the US has outperformed Europe since the crash.
So I assume this means you haven't criticized Obama for any poor economic performance in the past and will not be doing so in the future either, correct?
the biggest chunk of unemployed is the under 25 set. they really don't fall into either of your categories.
there's probably another good sized chunk of people for whom daycare would eat up too much of what are still very low wages for many people, so the extra net dollars aren't worth it. i'd really like to see the figure of single earner households as a % of married households over the last few years to figure out if that could be part of the equation.
I agree that austerity has not been done in the US to the same level as Eruope, but I disagree as to the conclusion that is the difference in US success.
Europe for a long while has been far less productive vs the US, and had been growing its standard of living at a rate faster than productivity. I would argue that the stagnation of Europe has a lot more to do with a natural adjustment because the wealth destruction.
Oh I can name plenty of policies which logically or demonstrably have hurt employment. I am just asking you guys what policy you are taking credit for helping employment.
I have a sneaking suspicion that your evidence for these will be underwhelming.
As for his policies, I already said it. I think more than anything the best thing he did outside of the stimulus is block austerity measures from being implemented more severely.
I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that's helped although I doubt it's to the extent you think. I'll continue to say that it's a lot easier for Presidents to do things which hurt the economy than things to help it. Some Obama rulemaking for example has been helpful (CFPB Rule Z being an example) but more than anything I think it's that he's refrained (or been blocked) from doing hugely sweeping new regulations. For example, new carbon taxes would have been hugely detrimental to the economy.
It's not so much what Obama has done as since the original stimulus he's been quite constrained, it's what he hasn't done. There have been several large pushes for wide-ranging austerity that he has for the most part resisted. It's a big part of why the US has outperformed Europe since the crash.
Oh I can name plenty of policies which logically or demonstrably have hurt employment. I am just asking you guys what policy you are taking credit for helping employment.