Unemployment rate at 5.5%

But I'm sure it's some type of scam, or illusion, or void in Nebraska, or some damn thing.

If you squint your eyes, it is really 8.8%.

[Judge Jude]

The unemployment rate is an ineffective measure of the REAL job situation, according to the Republicans from 2009-15, according to the Democrats from 2000-2008, and so on....

[GwynnInTheHall]

My fiance and I moved back to Vegas a month ago today. In that time we have both gotten 2 jobs each. Working about 60 hours between them each.

You can get work a lot easier today than when I was here 5 years ago and was unemployed for almost a year.

[Moonlight J]

I lost my job in November 2013, was hired at another one in May of 2014, and have hired two people to work for me over the past month. We've hired or have created positions for 75 people on our sales staff in the past 3 months....and we sell to schools.


It's pretty damn good right now

[Lucky]

I'm in the county that makes a triangle with the counties which are home to Dallas and Ft. Worth, respectively. Tons of stuff going on in this area.

Unemployment in this county is 4%. Economists say there will always be at least 3.X% unemployment because of people between jobs, new grads, etc.

If you don't mind living there, northwest Arkansas is in a huge economic boom. Fayetteville if great, can't vouch for the other places.

I don't really remember so much people disputing unemployment numbers as being a sham until Obama was President. I'm old, though.

[Judge Jude]

"I don't really remember so much people disputing unemployment numbers as being a sham until Obama was President."

Air America left-wing radio, including Rachel Maddow, was all over the "real" number during GW Bush terms - and rightly so to some extent. But I'd be surprised if she ever mentions it again before 2017 or beyond.

Same with "created jobs." The President of one's favored party in office while the economy is good is a magical being who waves a wand. If it's the other guy, someone else deserves the credit. and so on. it's pitiful....

[Lucky]

"I don't really remember so much people disputing unemployment numbers as being a sham until Obama was President."

Air America left-wing radio, including Rachel Maddow, was all over the "real" number during GW Bush terms - and rightly so to some extent. But I'd be surprised if she ever mentions it again before 2017 or beyond.

Same with "created jobs." The President of one's favored party in office while the economy is good is a magical being who waves a wand. If it's the other guy, someone else deserves the credit. and so on. it's pitiful....

I just remember the rate which was put out there by the administration was around 5%, which is considered by economists to be full employment. It stayed low until there was a substantial increase between 2008 and 2009, when the rate spiked to around 9%. It looks like it has been slowly dropping since then.

As long as they are using the same technique to calculate, I'm okay with it.

[revo]

The unemployment rate is an ineffective measure of the REAL job situation, according to the Republicans from 2009-15, according to the Democrats from 2000-2008, and so on....

Right. Every Republican will remind you that the those out of the workforce for a year is no longer counted, but no idea why they haven't reminded us of that fact for the last 50 years until now.

[onejayhawk]

Right. Every Republican will remind you that the those out of the workforce for a year is no longer counted, but no idea why they haven't reminded us of that fact for the last 50 years until now.

Right. The Labor Participation rate is the lowest since the late 1970s. It's reasonable argument, but with issues. This is what they are talking about.
latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2001_2015_all_period_M02_data.jpg

This is a sharp decline since 2008, compared to fairly level numbers from 2000 to 2008. Each percent is roughly 2.5 million people. So, we have an increase of over 7 million people who are not working and no longer looking for work, since President Obama took office. It's a valid point. My question is how many are retired? The baby boom is aging, lest we forget.

Also, these are the lowest numbers in a generation, but not low historically. From inception = 1948

latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2015_all_period_M02_data.jpg

A significant part of the early growth is women entering the workplace. That trend seems to have peaked, which is another factor to consider.

J

[chancellor]

Right. Every Republican will remind you that the those out of the workforce for a year is no longer counted, but no idea why they haven't reminded us of that fact for the last 50 years until now.

Actually, they did from 92 to 00 too. . As Jude pointed out, that's the job of the opposition party.

No matter what, better employment levels via any metric are good. It's debateable whether the present admins policies helped get there - let's not forget they promised this about four years ago with the stimulus. But saying 5.5% isn't good is silly.

[onejayhawk]

In the battle of memes, both sides have valid points. It's the weight that matters.

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

I'm unemployed.

Thanks, Obama.

You should talk to the Dodgers. they're signing anyone with a pulse this offseason.........

[chancellor]

I'm unemployed.

Thanks, Obama.

When do you finish law school?

[Andrewski]

Still have another year after this one, so pretty much a lifetime.

Ahhhhhh, 3L year next year The best year (or at least pretty close to it) of my life. Enjoy!!!

[The Feral Slasher]

I found a good presentation from the BLS on the employment situation over the last 25 years. Things are certainly improving, still a ways to go.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf