Slashdot Mirror
US Economy Added 178,000 Jobs in November; Unemployment Rate Drops To 4.6 Percent (washingtonpost.com)
The U.S. economy added 178,000 jobs in November, while the unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent from 4.9 percent the previous month, according to new government data released (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source) Friday morning. From a report on the Washington Post: Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News had expected U.S. employers to create 180,000 new jobs last month -- roughly in line with the average number added in the first 11 months of the year. The first release after a contentious election in which the candidates disputed the health and direction of the economy, the data showed a job market that is continuing to steadily strengthen from the recession. The unemployment rate fell to levels not seen since August 2007, before a bubble in the U.S. housing market began to burst. The fall was driven partly by the creation of new jobs, and partly by people retiring and otherwise leaving the labor force. The labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.7 percent. Average hourly earnings declined by 3 cents to $25.89. The decrease pared back large gains seen in October, but over the year average hourly earnings are still up 2.5 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said.
Didn't take long, now he's been mentioned.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
That's because these numbers don't include the people who have given up looking for jobs.
the GOP saved us from the Anti-Christ Obama, who was sure to appoint himself President-for-Life, and who, unchecked, would have stripped religion, freedom, free enterprise, free speech, free beer, whiteness, and fast food from our great land. Obviously this good news has to do with our optimism about President Trump, who has vowed to preserve our most sacred traditions and Make America Great Again, Like It Used To Be, Before Obama Took All The Jobs, you know?
Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office, regardless of which measure you look at. So Obama didn't really "fix" anything. Here's an article from CNBC where they explain the differences in the various measures of unemployment and why the number mentioned in the OP isn't terribly meaningful.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/02...
Dear America,
Brace yourself, this might be the last story before "Despite Trump" begins to be added to every positive story by the bitter left wing.
Sincerely,
The UK, despite Brexit.
So Obama didn't really "fix" anything
Well, that all depends on what the rest of the world was doing. The US doesn't exist in a vacuum. If things get only a little bit worse in the US, but much worse in the global economy, then the president has done a good job.
Likewise if things get only a little bit better in the US, but the world economy gets a lot better, then the president has done a poor job even if things have improved.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"The labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.7 percent. Average hourly earnings declined by 3 cents to $25.89."
It's not really as rosy as the headline makes it seem. Cherry picking numbers works for both sides in DC.
The unemployment rate fell to levels not seen since August 2007, before a bubble in the U.S. housing market began to burst. The fall was driven partly by the creation of new jobs, and partly by people retiring and otherwise leaving the labor force. The labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.7 percent.
So uh, inflation is still a thing (at a fairly steady rate) and retirement plans have imploded and people have less savings than ever, so they should be having to work longer, right? Unless those people are actually dropping dead, a reduction in the labor force participation rate at this time equals an increase in the actual unemployment rate, as defined by the number of people seeking employment. People who are partially employed and either going farther into debt or neglecting their health because they can't afford deductibles and/or time off (or both) are not only a growing segment of the population but also not represented in the unemployment rate.
Last I checked, a million new jobs hadn't made any improvement in the number of people seeking work. This is really the only relevant statistic of this bunch, and it's not presented here. Hmmmmmm.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
These are not the hallmarks of a thriving economy. The US economy is in a sickly state, with too many part time jobs with no benefits. We need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot. The fact that the numbers look like an improvement is a bit like a doctor telling a patient wife that he's not sick any more. He's dead. The US needs to get healthy before it dies.
Are you saying we should be on a toddler-based economy?
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Actually, in 2013, it's estimated that undocumented immigrants paid $11.64 billion in state and local taxes.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
High labor force participation rates indicate a poor society in which people are desperate for income.,
Peak labor force participation rate was 2007 at 66.4%, 4.6% unemployment; unemployment peaked at 10% in 2009, 65% labor force participation rate. Adjusting these, that 10% unemployment rate in a 66.4% LFPR world would reflect 10.21%.
4.6% unemployment in November 2016 is at 62.7% LFPR. At a LFPR of 66.4%, that would reflect 4.87% unemployment. Comparing to Obama's peak 10% at 65%, it'd be 4.77%.
The thing about labor force participation rate is it includes discouraged workers and workers who otherwise want or would like but can't get jobs. Everyone who isn't in the labor force doesn't want to be there and won't magically take up a job if you hand them one--which means they're also not welfare recipients, since welfare goes to unemployed labor force.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
People who stop looking are in UE4, which includes discouraged workers. U4 is 5.0.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Well, Labor Participation Rate vs Unemployment is not just about people who stopped looking for a job, it is also about people who don't need a job, so it is not a particularly better metric.
Unemployment rate has always been "underreporting" by a margin that is open to debate. If this margin is relatively stable throughout the years, then unemployment rate is a good *comparative* tool. Do you have any sources that say that the current unemployment rate is more severely underreporting unemployment and thus not comparable to historic rates? If yes, then you have a point, otherwise.. no.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
When Bush was president 200,000 new jobs was considered anemic as it didn't cover the rise in working age adults.
Now, with a greater population 187k is considered great. A sign that the economy is truly booming.
Wait a year, when Trump is president, and anything under 200,000k will be considered anemic again.
Remember we've always been at war with Eastasia.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I notice you produce not even a link to your 'strong evidence'. Apparently you don't think it is all that strong?
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
I wonder what this''ll do for Trump's expectations. We have a bit of a paradox at the moment - he gets away with the a lot of stuff we would never let any other person say, and we accept his lack of policy, on the basis that he's inexperienced, or not a normal politician. However, at the very same time, people seem to have rather unreal standards for him - not only is he supposed to be everything that a normal president is supposed to be, classy and in tune with what's happening, but he's supposed to exceed on every metric - bring outstanding improvements to the economy, make the United States a world power (without diplomacy), and construct vast infrastructure improvements while curb stomping taxes for everyone. I honestly wonder what'll happen with his supporters when these two collide - many of them do seem to genuinely expect him to pull this off, and if he fails, they don't have anybody else to blame. 2020 might be a rather interesting election year...
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
In what world?
Want to use U-6 unemployment? Nope, not that one either.
Obama inherited the largest economic recession since the Great Depression. And the US is now out of it. Now you can argue over whether someone else could have done it faster or not. But let's not lie about the facts.
People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office
Nope. U3 in January 2009 was 7.9% U3 today is 4.6%. Here's a graph of U3 during Obama's time in office.
The Employment-population ratio is down significantly, but that doesn't necessarily indicate people who want work can't find it. Things like "retirement" and "wages that don't cover daycare" come in to play.
As usual, the number doesn't count the 'statistically employed' - people who've been out of work for long and have given up looking for work as a result
As it never has. So you're interested in comparing apples to oranges now?
Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office
Nope. U3 in January 2009 was 7.9% U3 today is 4.6%. Here's a graph of U3 during Obama's time in office.
The Employment-population ratio is down significantly, but that doesn't necessarily indicate people who want work can't find it. Things like "retirement" and "wages that don't cover daycare" come in to play.
Please stop using facts. They don't apply in today's world of the alt-truth.
You know those numbers include MILLIONS of people here illegally, and not paying a dime in taxes right?
When I had a bout of unemployment in 2014, I've discovered that a C. RAMOS used my Social Security number to work under, contributing to my Social Security account and inflating my unemployment benefit award. I had to notify Social Security, unemployment office and IRS to set the record straight. Social Security withdrew the contributed money, unemployment office reduced my unemployment benefits by $50 per week, and the IRS gave me a PIN for filing my taxes.
If it is a liberal shithole, why do so many Libertarians and Conservatives frequent it, and make so much noise?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They don't have a choice but to lie, because otherwise they have to admit Obama's eight years were eight years of generally positive economic growth, and that means they elected a buffoon who was simply inventing nonsense claims about America's economic woes. When people rationalize away facts, they are emotionally incapable of admitting that in many cases, so will simple ignore anything that confirms those much hated facts.
The statistics don't matter to the Trump supporters. The statistics can't matter to Trump supporters. They are not emotionally equipped to deal with the statistics.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
[...] doesn't have documentation about his existence or tax status.
I once had a roommate of questionable immigration status (i.e., when the cops asked about him, I've told them that my roommates and I had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy). He told me that he had paid $3,000 for identity papers in Los Angeles that permitted him to work legally in the U.S. Of course, that was before 9/11.
We need another moderation choice called "Inaccurate".
Even your own link refutes what you are saying. Obama was sworn in on January 20th 2009, so even if you foolishly believe Obama's policies affected the unemployment rate on day 1, his first U6 unemployment numbers (for Feb '09) were at 15.2%. That is compared to 9.3% in November 2016. And if you even give Obama's new policies six months to start affecting the economy, Obama more realistically started with a 16.7% U6 unemployment.
By any measure, unemployment is far better than it was when Obama took office.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
High labor force participation rates indicate a poor society in which people are desperate for income.,
Did you really intend to say that? Seriously. A high labor force participation rate indicates that people are not only active in the economy which is very good thing, and it also means people are actively taking care of themselves and not relying on others.
The thing about labor force participation rate is it includes discouraged workers and workers who otherwise want or would like but can't get jobs. Everyone who isn't in the labor force doesn't want to be there and won't magically take up a job if you hand them one--which means they're also not welfare recipients, since welfare goes to unemployed labor force.
I don't even know where to begin with this statement. Labor force participation should include ALL workers...period. Just because you are "discouraged" doesn't mean you shouldn't work. Sorry, if you can work, you should work...PERIOD. For most of us, sure we would love to stay home and not work, but that doesn't mean I have the right to not and force others to pay for my discouragement.
There is some truth to that. Employers now have a more certain future than they did before the election. Certainty helps by reducing the risks and cost of employing people. I notice the decline in unemployment coincides with considerable certainty that Obama's salary changes (forcing overtime on lower salary jobs) order isn't going to be carried out.
You mean like how he gave Carrier $7M in tax breaks and now they're building a factory for the 1300 jobs they shipped south of the border?
That kind of great?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Good point; but I didn't know that Walmart needed that many greeters with optional engineering backgrounds for the War on Christmas Season.
http://portalseven.com/employm...
What is U6 unemployment rate ?
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Really? 178,000 Walmart greeters are hired in the week vs. 8 yeas ago when 2,000,000 people a month were losing their jobs? Get your head out of your ass.
The US baby boom occurred between 1946 and 1964.
Add 18-25 years, and a baby boom becomes a 'employee boom'.
Add 60-65 years, and a baby boom becomes a 'retiree boom'.
The workforce participation graph is just a chart of the lifecycle of 'baby boomers'. It really has fuck all to do with who's siting in the oval office.
Furthermore, it's a good sign for the economy that labor participation is falling. It means that 'boomers' are choosing to retire and leave jobs for younger workers to fill, as demonstrated by the falling U3 unemployment rate. The downside is that those retirees are putting more burden on the Social Security and Medicare programs, but we've known that would happen for the past fifty years.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
That's true. It's actually a 2,600 job net change. -1300 for US, +1300 for Mexico. +$7m for carrier in tax breaks, -$2m for Carrier to build factory in MX.
USA! USA! USA!
Lock her up! Wait, what?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
And your point is? Obama did not become President until January 2009. U6 rose sharply during 2008.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Isn't the number of people who are not working a more important number? Last I looked that number was up to 95 million people.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
The unemployment rate is just a distraction.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
Talking about debt isn't helping your case any. Here's the deficit (change in debt) from year to year: Link
Why is that Republicans keep blowing the budget? Well, let's look at the case of Bush. Wow, whodathunkit, massive tax breaks to top income earners skyrockets debt, news at 11! And yes, having the government hawk itself into debt is great for the short term strength of the stock market.
Re, debt outlook under Trump: absolutely not if he enacts his "Bush Tax Cuts+++ proposal.
People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
Actually, only 800 jobs are staying.
And if Hillary did the *exact* same deal, she would have been ripped for weeks on tax breaks and 1300 jobs going to Mexico.
But Trump, who apparently likes government to pick winners (while complaining when Obama did same), crows about it all day long.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Isn't the number of people who are not working a more important number?
No. Because there are some people who are not "working" and do not want a job. The retired, independently wealthy, people caring for their children or elderly family members, etc.
When the BLS runs their survey for "unemployment", they produce several different statistics. The one that gets printed in headlines is called U3.
People who would work if they could find a job, or are working fewer hours than they would like, are included in U6. Here's U6.
You are talking about the employment/population ratio. A high employment/population ratio is not necessarily a "good" economy, and a low one is not necessarily a "bad" economy. Here's the employment/population ratio. You'll note that during the economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s, the employment/population ratio was lower than it is today.
While in general I support the ACAs insurance exchanges as they allowed many people to try their own business whereas earlier they could not because of preexisting medical conditions which made them ineligible, there are many things wrong with the ACA.
The problem in US is the out of control medical costs and a culture of throwing everything at a medical problem which can not be fixed. 5% of medical users - mostly the born defectives and the dying - who consume 80% of the healthcare budget.
Insurance just tends to hide this by spreading the cost over everyone else.
The problem to be solved was the high cost of medicine. Instead we got corporate welfare for the insurance companies, pharma companies and hospitals. Everyone has to have insurance and if they cant afford it the govt will pay for it and since everyone has insurance hospitals and pharma can charge up the wazoo.
If I compare the costs of a procedure in India and US the amount to be paid in India at market rates at a private hospital is less than the copay in the US with silver insurance. This is totally out of whack. In other industries the price difference between US and India is 1:3. In Medicine it is 1:20.
Doctors and Engineers earn roughly the same in other countries given the difficulty of both education. However in the US Doctors earn vastly more.
Also pharma companies in the US make windfall profits and Hospital directors earn in the millions.
What is needed is competition.
The govt should have abolished health insurance and provided medicare for all and only covering catastrophic illneses (something requiring admission). Everything else to be paid by customer. It should also have regulated to make the costs more transparent - everything should be on a menu upfront rather than a bill later (There would be more prssure for this if most people were not using insurance to pay).
Also mandate that Medicare will pay for flying a patient to a foreign country if the cost of transport and treatment is less than the cost of treatment in the US (for elective and non-emergency surgery). This would put market pressure on the cost of elective surgery and bring that cost down.
Also Medicare should create guidelines on when we should stop spending money on people who will not have any quality of life even if you spend money on it. I would even advocate paying every couple who is diagnosed as carrying a genetically defective child 1 million dollar to abort. It would be vastly cheaper than paying for health services over a lifetime.
And yes we need death panels. Way too much money is spent on dying people. This raises costs for everyone and the most affected are the most vulnerable - the children. Endangering children who will grow up to be productive citizens to prolong the lives of half dead vegetables is ridiculous. Doctors love to do it because its risk free work. if the old die after spending a million on them they can just shrug and say death comes to all. However spending a million on childhood nutrition and preventive medicine better shouw results or heads will roll. Also there is no boost to the hero complex from improving the health of a 100 children but there is a boost in keeping alive for one more day a half dead person - Yeah I beat the Grim reaper for one more day!!!
BTW Taking the medical insurance away from employers means employers would more easily grow and reduce payroll as needed without all the gimmicks of 29.5 hour weeks for part time workers who then have to find another job.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Let's consider just one statistic - workforce participation as a percentage of the population. Around the year 2000 it was about 67%, it has been fairly steadily declining since 2008 from about 67% to 63%...
In other words, 4% less of the working age population is employed.
I'll just mention in passing things like the majority of newly-created jobs being part-time, wages being stagnant for the last 8 years, and a national debt that has increased from an "unpatriotic" $11 Trillion under President Bush to nearly $20 Trillion after 8 years of President Obama...
That is what passes for "generally positive economic growth"?
Ken
Well, that all depends on what the rest of the world was doing. The US doesn't exist in a vacuum. If things get only a little bit worse in the US, but much worse in the global economy, then the president has done a good job.
That's not actually true, if the rest of the world's economy is an amplified following function of the U.S. economy. Which it is, since the U.S. dollar is the defacto world reserve currency. Yes, there are other reserve currencies, but as long as the vast majority of oil exchanges are denominated in U.S. dollars, it's the only commodity backed currency. That makes it the benchmark.
Err...what's wrong with kids/students working?
Child labor laws prevents kids as young as five-year-old from working 12 hour shifts seven days a week.
I have been working a job of some sort since I was 16yrs old.
But child labor laws prevented you from working for 11 years. You probably didn't work 12 hours shifts for seven days a week.
No one that is able bodied should be given a free ride, hell yes get out there and work.
All those trust fund babies need to get off their lazy asses and work in the coal mines.
Don't you understand that the workforce participation ratio only includes so-called "working-age" Americans and excludes retirement age Americans?
Ken
During Obama's term, 20 million more people have been added to the labor force.
And U6, which includes those who are 'no longer considered' has gone down a lot under Obama as well.
It's not that hard to look up..
http://portalseven.com/employm...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Compare it to inflation adjusted salaries, though, and you'll see that in the 50's and 60's, married women weren't working, because men's salaries could feed a household. That's not a relevant comparison to today, with real salaries significantly smaller and most households requiring 2 jobs to achieve that standard of living. ... and those numbers don't include the induced cost of childcare from lower salaries and both adults working.
The U3 numbers are a poor indication of the true employment situation,. but has been the consistent measurement for decades... The more accurate indication is the U6 number:
Source: The True Unemployment Rate: U6 Vs. U3
Ken
Don't worry - Trump and the new swamp he's building will turn that 4.6% unemployment number into at least 14.6% unemployment before he's through. He campaigned on lies and promises he can't keep, and Pence is no better having destroyed the economy of Indiana in pursuit of religious ideology.
So what you're saying is that a lot of people who have no expertise in a given field believe that they're unrelated qualifications make them an expert.
There's a name for that, it's called a "fallacious appeal to authority", and as you make pretty clear unintentionally, having a higher education does not confer some special ability to make declarations on a field for which you have no particular expertise.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I hope he's got better sense than President Obama had.
I'm expecting Trump to abuse executive orders once he discovers that a democracy doesn't work the same way as a corporation, especially if Democrats used the filibuster in the Senate the same way that the Republicans did to obstruct Obama.
Those executive orders caused a lot of grief with people. It's part of what fueled the "Trump Train."
Even though historically Obama has issued fewer executive orders than many of his predecessors. If the Republicans weren't obstructing his policies from beginning to end, he wouldn't have to rely on executive orders to get things done.
It's part of what fueled the "Trump Train."
Soon to become the "Trump Betrayal" as he fails to keep his campaign promises, either because Congress won't go along or he wasn't serious about what he said on the campaign trail.
A statistic is only a lie if you're too stupid to interpret what it really means.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
That math works only until other companies start extorting the government to keep from moving jobs out, and they've already been doing that.
In stark contrast, Obama bailed out GM, kept all 1.5 million jobs, got them to pay back the loans. With interest.
But yay for Carrier not shipping ALL their jobs to Mexico and providing a blueprint for every other company to milk the 'conservative' new government. Can Apple get a $1T tax break?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
You mean like how he gave Carrier $7M in tax breaks and now they're building a factory for the 1300 jobs they shipped south of the border?
President-elect Trump was quite clear:
Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences. Not gonna happen. It's not gonna happen.
So if you think you're going to skedaddle without the government offering you money to stay, you have another think coming. Consequences.
Maybe I should threaten to leave.
Can I get just a $500k tax break? I'm not proud, I'd stay for that
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
No, what you're saying is that people with no expertise in a field feel that they have an ability to critique a rather specialized field they have no expertise in.
It's a fallacious appeal to authority, full stop.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
* presuming (as I do) that GW is real, but not solely attributable to AGW, no one is willing to give a percentage breakdown on cause
OT, but I'll have a go. Generally what we have over the last century or so is a secular warming trend (from greenhouse gasses) with fluctuations from various other factors including volcanoes, aerosols, solar output, internal variability, etc. That secular warming trend is strong enough now that studies find most, (or possibly more than all)) of the warming over the last 50 years can be attributed to greenhouse gasses. See for example Tett et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2004, Stone et al. 2007, Lean and Rind 2008, Huber and Knutti 2011, Gillett et al. 2012, Wigley and Santer 2012, and Jones et al. 2013.
Are you kidding? The War on Christmas hasn't been going well for us under Baraq Hussein Soetoro. We need the smartest men and women in greeter positions to use their technical expertise to strategically deploy Santas, pine trees, striped poles, the virgin goddess, and the other holy pagan symbols of Reichsführer Jesus! Only Walmart greeters have the boots-on-the-ground experience to prevent the gay Mooooooooslims from outlawing Christmas with their highly sophisticated containment strategies based on the latest engineering advancements!
They'll keep fighting, and they'll win!
See, I said GM paid back all their loans. Not TARP as a whole, which is what you're referring to.
And they did:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/...
"Yes, it’s true that GM paid back its loan from the Treasury Department, in full, ahead of schedule."
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
It's true, but you'd think we'd have had a much faster, better "recovery," given the staggering amount of debt used to prop up the economy during the Obama administration. Bush inherited a recession, too; the internet bubble was bursting and he had to deal with 911, he spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave and I was extremely angry with how much extra debt he saddled us with - think of how I feel about the Obama administration, and for what? Stagnant wages and a recovery so slow it would have happened anyway (much like Roosevelt recovery) don't make feel like "well, at least we got that." So yes, both parties screw us by running up the debt and kicking the can down the road, but Obama essentially doubled it.
The only reason Clinton could balance the budget was because republicans (only because they didn't have the executive branch) forced it, and it wasn't difficult with an economy propped up by the internet bubble. But as soon as republicans got the executive branch, too, all hell broke loose and "deficits don't matter." I thought it might get better when democrats took over congress, but it actually got worse - you really can't win with these guys, but keep berating people like me for voting third party.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Obama inherited an almost trillion dollar deficit and a tumbling economy that reduced revenues and increased expenditures - that is what increased the debt under Obama. The deficit has been cut in half since then, which is not good enough, but better than it'll be if Trump increases "infrastructure" spending and reduces taxes.
The standard of living is different. Today it is much higher than it was in the olden days. People live in bigger houses, have more vehicles, and have much more technology than they did back then. They also spend more money on stupid things, like $4 cups of coffee, designer clothes and handbags, and every single service wants a monthly subscription for $20 or more. If people lived exactly like they did in the 50's, they could probably do it pretty well with a single income.
Actually, according to your own link, it has been steadily declining since around 2000 (so I'm sure that's Obama's fault).
Could it have something to do with population changes? Like Baby Boomers retiring? Or more stay-at-home moms?
Why people like to compare past households with present day households to suggest the economy was better in the 50's, 60's is incomprehensible. They're apples and oranges. The economy was not better, the standard of living was lower. At no time in the history of the United States has there been a time when the average citizen has been as materially wealthy as they are now. We don't build 1000sq. ft. mid-century modest homes, we build 2000+ sq. ft. McMansions. We don't drive those unreliable, antiquated tanks on wheels, nor is there just one per family. Today the average passenger car would be seen as fit for the 1/10th of the 1% back then. Today the average person owns vastly more cloths and of that those of materials that would have been exclusive to the elite. Imagine sitting down in the evening to a 15" manual-tune grayscale VHF tube TV the size of a significant chest of drawers today. People back then couldn't even comprehend the existence of the personal electronics the average person owns today let alone possessing them themselves. The quality and kinds of food readily available and affordable today would be seen as scandalously extravagant. The service industry of which everyone presently avails themselves was bit a tiny mote of what it is today. These comparisons can be made for nearly all facets of life with great similarity of result.
To suggest that people would be better off with the economy of the 50's and 60's is preposterous. If we lived now as we did then, then Walmart would absolutely be the employer of bourgeoisie.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I know it's true that you do, but I still find it hard to grasp that people like you exist. You'll believe and repeat everything you hear from your favorite talking heads with no regard for how much it defies logic. How is an interest bearing loan repaid in full a taxpayer handout while a tax break which is to say, they get to put fewer dollars into the government coffers, not a handout?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Everyone else is choosing to be in school, being a stay at home parent, or whatever other reason. Workforce participation is a gauge of a changing society, not a measure of economic strength.
When the recession hit my husband chose to go to grad school. He couldn't find a job where we live so he went back to school. When we had kids, he chose to become a stay at home dad. It would have been too expensive to pay for child care.
To say that going back to school or becoming a stay at home parent is "changing society" and has nothing to do with the economy is a bald faced lie. Those decisions are directly correlated to the economy. Gad school admissions stats are directly tied to unemployment. Our friends with stay at home parents have similar reasons to us: child care costs more than the one parent would earn so they stay home. My sister in law seriously considered quitting her job for a while due to the costs of child care. She was barely breaking even. My sons preschool teacher just quit so she could stay home and take care of a relative. People remove themselves from the workforce because the cost of working is more than the pay.
And the repercussions of that decision to be a stay at home parent are incredibly far reaching. When the kids all go to school, what then? After you've been out of the workforce for 10+ years?
In case you were wondering, full time (5 days a week 8-5) care at one of the day cares near me is ~$600 a week. $2400 a month. $28,800 a year. If you have two kids that's $57,600 a year. Staying home with the kids is very much an economic decision, not a societal one.
That's not a relevant comparison to today, with real salaries significantly smaller and most households requiring 2 jobs to achieve that standard of living
Actually, the point is people focusing on employment/population ratio alone are missing an enormous number of confounding factors. Employment/population ratio is only a useful statistic when combined with a whole lot of other statistics to try and tease out whatever it is you are attempting to analyze.
They never do.
The funniest/saddest part is this:
'Tax & spend' is much more fiscally conservative than 'just spend'.
Yet Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative. They close their eyes when the R gov't spends & spends. Like it did under Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and Reagan.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
When the recession hit my husband chose to go to grad school. He couldn't find a job where we live so he went back to school. When we had kids, he chose to become a stay at home dad. It would have been too expensive to pay for child care. To say that going back to school or becoming a stay at home parent is "changing society" and has nothing to do with the economy is a bald faced lie.
So if your household was part of the 60,000 households selected for the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), he would be listed as unemployed under most likely U4-6 unemployment numbers. If he said he would like to be working instead of going to grad school, he would count as a discouraged worker. U6 also includes people working part time when they would like to work full time. Although he wouldn't show up in the U3 unemployment figures, which is by far the most common number discussed.
Try not to accuse people of a bald faced lie unless you have all your facts straight. It makes the rest of your comments seem less credible.
People remove themselves from the workforce because the cost of working is more than the pay. And the repercussions of that decision to be a stay at home parent are incredibly far reaching. When the kids all go to school, what then? After you've been out of the workforce for 10+ years? In case you were wondering, full time (5 days a week 8-5) care at one of the day cares near me is ~$600 a week. $2400 a month. $28,800 a year. If you have two kids that's $57,600 a year. Staying home with the kids is very much an economic decision, not a societal one.
I have two daughters (9 & 26 months old), and with my $3280 in monthly child care costs I assure you I understand the economic decisions that go into paying those bills. Although in my case we are lucky that we can make a decision instead of being forced into a decision since my wife (the lower earner) still makes over $4000 take home each month.
But note I did not say non-U6 related reasons to be unemployed are never impacted by economic realities (they always are), but that they aren't a good measure of economic strength or a poor economy. The vast majority of households do not have two earners taking home $3k+ after taxes, and a few extra percentage points of growth in median income won't change that. If both parents aren't making $60k+ by the time they have children, the economic reality is one of you is probably staying home if you have multiple kids no matter how well the economy is doing.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
https://projects.propublica.or...
"Below is a list of all companies that failed to repay their bailout money. These transactions are final and will never result in a profit for taxpayers."
BAILOUT FUNDS OUTGOING BAILOUT FUNDS, INCOMING /Net Outstanding Disbursed Returned Dividends + Interest Warrants Other Proceeds
Name Type State Profi
General Motors Auto Company MI -$11,393,681,666 $50,744,648,329 $38,656,806,062 $694,160,600 $0 $0
CIT Group Bank (Public) NY -$2,286,312,500 $2,330,000,000 $0 $43,687,500 $0 $0
Chrysler Auto Company MI -$1,212,849,005 $10,748,284,222 $7,256,590,642 $1,171,263,942 $0 $1,107,580,633
GM received over $50B, and still owes $11B. Chrysler received over $10B and still owes over $1B. I suppose "still owes" is not exactly accurate, as the numbers largely reflect the loss the government took on the equity instruments they forced on the companies and the government has closed the books. It is true that GM paid back the loans with interest, but that was not the full extent of the monies that were extended to GM.
GM and Chrysler bailouts tossed bankruptcy regulations out the window, screwed over primary bond-holders, but saved the union jobs at outrageous expense while setting dangerous precedents.
But the reality is total number of workers no longer in the work force, which is 95,055,000. Really, 50% unemployment?
Employment/population ratio does not work like you are trying to claim. Because lots of people do not work because they don't want to and do not have to. Students, taking care of loved ones, independently wealthy, retired, disabled, etc.
Here's the employment/population ratio for the last several decades. You note it never got remotely close to 100%, even during economic booms.
Nope. There are 6 unemployment statistics. The one that shows up in newspaper headlines is U3. U6 covers people who would take a job if they could find one, or want to work more hours than they already are. Here's U6. You'll note it is also down.
To get a better idea of just how misleading that headline from Zerohedge is, here's the employment/population ratio for the last few decades. That is down from it's peak, but well above where it was during the economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s. You'll also note we have never gotten remotely close to 100%, yet the breathless story from Zerohedge implies something is wrong with less than 100%.
There are lots of reasons someone does not have a paid job. Some of the most common are retirement, going to school, and caring for a loved one. And they are all "not in the labor force".
Guess what? BLS doesn't only count U3. In fact, they have a statistic called U6 which covers the people you are claiming BLS ignores. The Shadowstats article you linked even talks about U6, so it's kinda odd you forgot about it when making your post.
Here's U6.
And the owners of Shadowstats would like to thank you for your efforts at generating more subscribers to their website.
The apparent lack of familial issues was merely an illusion. As soon as divorce became a realistic option the numbers of broken homes exploded as victimized women fled abusive relationships.
Much of the troubles among minority communities, especially African Americans, came with the war on drugs. That single policy has systematically destroyed entire generations, and not by accident.
The internet and modern 24 hour cycle media can be thanked for the impression that we're more stressed and divided than ever. Crime has actually been in a steady decline practically since our country started tracking those statistics. When something horrific does occur you can be sure that it'll be published and covered to some extent by dozens of news sources. Major political divisions have been with us since the founding of the country, the only real difference today is the speed and omnipresence of the media coverage today.
Wealth inequality has definitely been getting worse, which is why the middle class is disappearing. Obesity has risen as access to food has increased and sedentary lifestyles made more of the norm. Despite both of those things though the average person today likely has access to better healthcare, at least on the medication side of things, and a longer life expectancy.