We are at "full employment" 4.9%.
nytimes.com/2016/02/06/business/economy/jobs-...
nytimes.comPosted Feb 5, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC
6466
nytimes.comIf you ignore everyone who doesn't have a job, we are at full employment! :D
51
The problem is, these "good" stats come at the peak of a bubble. It's the only time our economy looks even remotely "normal" by the numbers.
14
Pretty much. By the time you get to 5% or less the next recession is right around the corner...
2
[deleted]
5
To be fair, there will always be a small percentage of people between jobs or who are fired or laid off. Getting the rate to 0% is impossible.
That number is a bit less than 4.9% though.
The real issue here is the unemployment rates for minorities which is still 10% for African Americans. Sure, this has gotten better too, but its completely arrogant to say that we have reached full employment when there are demographics that are struggling.
1
Needless to say, we're not factoring in U-6 unemployment here.
20
I personally prefer U5, since U6 includes people who do have jobs, but just want more hours
7
Why wouldn't you count people who aren't working enough hours to generate sufficient income? Working a 10hr/week job doesn't mean you're on easy street.
6
the thing is that everyone who U6 counts that aren't already counted in U5 have jobs, so unemployment is somewhat innactuate.
2
They "have jobs" through a technicality basically, having a job that sometimes gives you a dozen hours a week isn't really "having a job" in most people's minds.
1
The problem with this wages have yet to start to rise, which means we are not at the natural rate of unemployment. Though we have to be getting close which is why the fed has raised interest rates. My guess is unemployment will have to get lower in order to have wages rise.
15
[deleted]
1
The Fed is raising rates specifically due to fears of inflation due to low unemployment.
2
1
The Fed cited job growth as a key reason for raising rates
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/12/business/economy/fed-rates-explainer.html
I'm not sure of your point... Inflation WAS low last year so they won't try and preemptively raise rates? Regardless of how low inflation was (mostly due to oil price crashing), low unemployment is a worry for inflation going forward.
5
Yes it does....
1
You can be employed and underemployed at the same time.
11
economy so great that large retailers are closing and a socialist is a popular presidential nominee
10
Nah, I think you're forgetting about Amazon and online shopping. Discount stores like Walmart in particular (who otherwise thrive in a poor economy).
Also, large retailers are closing because America's suburs are emptying out as people move into both urban and exurban areas.
The large retail model doesn't work well for urban environments nor well for sparsely populated exurbs.
2
The retail sector is one of the largest employers in the U.S. where exactly are all their "unskilled" employees going to work?
4
they likely wont.
2
Do you have some recent sources on the suburbs emptying out?
1
Does anyone know if the 4.9% includes grads who haven't been able to find anything? If it doesn't, why not?
8
They have to be ACTIVELY looking.
13
It includes all grads who are looking for a job.
3
[deleted]
1
If the grads stop looking for work, they aren't included in the numbers. So of those people who are actively seeking work, only 4.9% were unable to find work.
1
If no one is looking for work anymore, we'll be at 0%!!!! Celebrate good times -come on!!!!!
5
lets walk through this for a second.
Lets take my mom. Shes about 58.
She doesnt work, has no interest in working.
Should she count in the unemployment number?
1
I'd be surprised if unemployment rate was high for grads.
Most take on work in the typical food service, hospitality and retail industries until they find an entry level position (if they ever do).
Underemployed is much much more of an issue.
1
Mission Accomplished!!!
What!? Interest rates are still at practically 0%!? How could that be? The economy is cook'n !
7
The economy is definitely cooked.
3
An Update On The Waiter And Bartender Recovery
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-05/update-waiter-and-bartender-recovery
4
If there were a Republican in the White House, they would be saying a job is a job, work hard and you will own the bar/franchise/bootstraps. Welcome back to 2004
4
[deleted]
1
We are at the Lowest Participation Rate Since 1979
Do you have one of those that's more recent? More recent data will have a lot more punch than if it comes from a year when even the official unemployment numbers were still pretty high.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-05/fed-can-find-plenty-of-positives-in-details-of-latest-jobs-report
See the second chart. It's ticked up from a recent low somewhere near September last year to 62.7% -- still lower than '79.
I love how the article tries to spin even that in a positive light. Like, "We still haven't done any better than historic lows of labor participation, but at least it hasn't gotten any worse!"
http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-rate-january-2016-2016-2?op=1
Unless you happen to think that the 21,487,497 people over 65 need to work rather than be retired, a divergence of 2.5% from the 1979 labor participation rate isn't something to worry about.
Retires are now 7% (or 8... these are 2014 numbers) of our 298,185,550 adult population. Considering that in 1980, less than 5% of people were over 65, I think we can figure out why our labor participation rate is down by 2.5% of the population.
A lower labor participation rate is not necessarily a bad thing and actually shows that the economy has been recovering. A recovering stock and job market has allowed people who don't want to work - married women, retires, and students traditionally have less of a desire to work - to not have to do so. This isn't a bad thing.
Share of new income and overall wealth distribution on the other hand...
I don't think there has ever been an economic condition where incomes increased before that country hit full employment.
relevance to my comment?
If you look at the linked studies, demographic changes only account for half of the down slope. The rest is the fancy counting of "unemployed" and "employed" that tends to hide loss of participation. I am familiar that Jeb!s plan to raise retirement age wouls screw ALL workers.
That's a press release from 2013. It isn't really relevant to today's news. I wouldn't doubt that in 2013 that demographics didn't make the whole difference. .. but in Feb 2016, the data shows that demographics and the increase in college attendance answer the participation rate discrepancies. The sky's not falling.
Unless you're one of the 15 Million more Americans that have fallen into poverty. They might have a slightly less cavalier attitude about the sky.
Not much. Many of these people are participating in the workforce still already. Raising it a few years just moves an artificial barrier upwards a little for people that don't want mandatory retirement. Frankly, if we are going to have people in retirement for 20 years then they are just going to have to work longer.
Or we could stop spending a $Trillion per year on endless wars, maybe.
Or simply tax the rich.
Is the 298 million a number of working age people?
Yes. 16 and older. 2014 census data
We also have more eldarly then ever before and not as many college students in the workforce.
Really nothing to be concerned about.
I'd worry about the underemployment rate instead. 50%+ for recent grads.