10 million short...

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,106
Location
Somewhere Nice
One would think this kind of news, which has existed from years now, would have terrible ramifications for the political party in power, but its does not, when the party in power and the media are one.

The welfare state is not sustainable when millions of Americans are NOT contributing to it, but rather taking from it. One would think leftists would recognize this. Amazingly those same leftists in power persist in trying to legalize illegals who contribute little to the welfare state and take a lot.

One might conclude from this that the left is crazy, but this may be part of a big plan.


U.S. Is Still 10 Million Jobs Away From Normal
By Mark Whitehouse Jun 7, 2013 11:24 AM ET

Today's jobs report suggests the U.S. labor market is gradually healing the wounds left by the financial crisis of 2008. That said, we're still very far from normal.
A jobs report's headline numbers are designed to answer two questions: How many jobs did non-farm employers add in the previous month, and what percentage of the labor force was out of work? The answer to the first -- an estimated 175,000 in May, bringing the three-month average to 155,000 -- tells us that employers are adding jobs at a decent pace. The answer to the second -- 7.6 percent in May, up from 7.5 percent in April -- tells us that the labor force, which includes only those people who have jobs or are actively searching for one, increased by more than the number of people employed.
To get a better idea of where the job market stands, consider a different question: What percentage of the civilian population aged 16 to 65 is employed, and how does that compare to the pre-crisis average? This measure covers everyone, including those who have given up on finding jobs and hence are not counted in the unemployment rate. It also attempts to correct for the effects of an aging population by focusing on one age range.

As of May, the 16-to-65 employment-to-population ratio stood at 67.5 percent. That's up from 67.2 percent a year earlier, but still well below the average of 72.5 percent in the 10 years preceding the recession that began in January 2008.
i07wtR7RiCR4.jpg

Source: Labor Department; Chart: Bloomberg View
In terms of jobs, as of May, the economy was 9.98 million short of the number needed to put the employment-to-population ratio back at its "normal" level of 72.5 percent. That's better than a year ago, when the number was 10.50 million, but worse than in May 2009, when it stood at 8.93 million.
icV7txgPy4R8.jpg

Source: Labor Department; Chart: Bloomberg View
 
Werbung:
That number is too low. You also have to look at how many people are in the work force, and how many of all these are decent jobs, not part time burger flippers and hotel maids.

Also, are people who are working two part time jobs counted twice?
 
That number is too low. You also have to look at how many people are in the work force, and how many of all these are decent jobs, not part time burger flippers and hotel maids.

Also, are people who are working two part time jobs counted twice?


Yes...all good points.

Just as the American people failed to hold FDR responsible for prolonging the Great Depression with his idiotic economic policies, they are doing the same with BO as he prolongs the Great Recession with even more idiotic economic policies. Sad. Very sad.
 
You'd think a different age range would have been used; 16-65 includes many people who are not likely to be working. 25-55 is probably a much better indicator of the current and future health of the economy.

I do like this method better than using the un-employment percentage, it gives a better view of what's really going on.
 
You'd think a different age range would have been used; 16-65 includes many people who are not likely to be working. 25-55 is probably a much better indicator of the current and future health of the economy.

I do like this method better than using the un-employment percentage, it gives a better view of what's really going on.


I can't agree. Many Americans aged 16-65 want and need to work to support themselves. This age range is generally accepted as the group to determine labor participation rates in the nation.

Why exclude someone 24 or 56?
 
Werbung:
Of course I think everyone knows that the numbers they give us are ridiculous. Does anybody believe numbers? Short answer. No. In fact, I'm wondering why the government just doesn't say everyone has a job. I mean, if you're gonna lie..
 
Back
Top