We are at "full employment" 4.9%.
nytimes.com/2016/02/06/business/economy/jobs-...
nytimes.comPosted Feb 5, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC
3317
nytimes.comThe unemployment numbers have been an exercise in cooking the books since they started letting people fall off into the "no longer looking for work" category.
29
Haha, but the same report today from the Labor department said that the participation rate increased by 0.1!
Your argument would be right in some cases but in the report the article is referencing, I don't think so.
0†
said that the participation rate increased by 0.1!
I don't believe that for a moment, and even if the lie was true, the quality of jobs has decreased.
"According to the BLS' breakdown of jobs added in January of the 151,000 jobs added in the past month, retail trade added 58,000 jobs in January, while employment in food services and drinking places, aka waiters and bartenders, rose by 47,000 in January. In other words, 70% of the job gains in January went to minimum wage workers."
11
…and they are service jobs. Service jobs are nonsense jobs. They don't actually contribute to the productive economy. As Dimitry Orlov says, it is like trying to build an economy based on exchanging back rubs.
16
an economy based on exchanging back rubs
That sounds nicer than what we have now.
5
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-jobs-report-january-2016-2016-2
"Also, the labor-force participation rate rose to 62.7% from 62.6%."
"Wage growth was stronger than expected. Average hourly earnings rose 0.5% month-on-month. And compared with January 2015, earnings rose 2.5% (2.2% estimated)."
0
Yeah, don't believe any of it.
2
[deleted]
0
The government really needs to start talking about the underemployment rate. There are millions of people who have degrees and work shitty jobs. 4.9% unemployment rate means nothing.
15
It's not in their interest to report accurately about this kind of thing.
7
Not true.
4.9% "unemployment rate" means you can mock, shame, and generally say "LOOK AT THOSE LOONY PARANOIDS WHO SAY THINGS AREN'T GETTING AWESOME!"
6
~4% unemployment is what is defined as full employment, because of the natural switching between jobs and dropping out for childbirth and whatnot.
The issue is that government numbers have been "massaged" to reach that 4% number when the reality is much worse.
9
In the 1960's, 4 percent unemployment was considered to be full employment. Over the past years, that number seems to be accepted as being higher: 4 percent, 5 percent, 5.5 percent or even 6 percent.
4
True that's part of what massaging the numbers means
3
I wish for once they say the real umemployment number thats more then 20%
6
When you look at the horribly underemployed, given up looking/retired too early and people having to work two 28 hour jobs. It makes the numbers look so good.
5
In related news, the chocolate ration has been increased to 25 grams per week.
Double plus good.