US Unemployment Reaches 6-year low of 5.9%

[JRP1994]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d2adcfe8ae9e4cb3b7824e91be3c2347/us-jobless-rate-falls-6-year-low-59-pct

[Flake]

Lief: Thanks Obama!

But this is certainly good news

[Tender Branson]

Does anyone know why the US labor statistics are based on the "civilian noninstitutional population" and not the total population incl. the military stationed overseas ?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

This excludes ca. 5.5 million people from the total population:

http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/PEP/2013/PEPMONTHN

The military for example are in employment as well, so why exclude them ?

[AggregateDemand]

For $1T, we could hire 10M people at $100,000 per year. Think about it, and then question the efficacy of this "recovery" program. Most of the stimulus and QE has gone into unproductive spendthrift.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

This brings the total for 2014 2.040 million, so we're on track to add more than 2.5 million jobs this year, which would be the best year since 2005. Cool beans

[King]

For $1T, we could hire 10M people at $100,000 per year.

For one year and then they'd be unemployed again, and that of course assumes it was spent all in one year and not over the course of three years 2008-2010. You should really think more about it.

[Person Man]

For $1T, we could hire 10M people at $100,000 per year.

For one year and then they'd be unemployed again, and that of course assumes it was spent all in one year and not over the course of three years 2008-2010. You should really think more about it.

Yes. His protests are becoming sillier and sillier.

[King]

It's also easier to beat up on something that actually happened when compared to the grand theory in your imagination, where the critics are always silenced, no unforeseen problems occur, and poverty can be solved for $.10 on the dollar.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Oh Barry, is there anything you can't do?

[AggregateDemand]

For one year and then they'd be unemployed again, and that of course assumes it was spent all in one year and not over the course of three years 2008-2010. You should really think more about it.

Do you think QE lasts forever?

We don't pay 10M people $100,000 per year is because it would distort labor markets, and the government is supposedly spending the money more wisely than make-work or transfer payments.

However, if you consider the labor implications of stimulus spending, and you consider the current $7T price tag of this "recovery", you realize we aren't recovering. Even with the free stimulus we're pulling out of the ground in TX and ND, we still can't make ends meet.

[King]

You're the one who brought up 10M @ 100,000. Obviously it's stupid, and your QE boogeyman nonsense doesn't even deserve a response.

$1 trillion didn't show up as +$1 trillion flat because the economy was contracting without it. We were probably going to lose about a trillion in real GDP if we did nothing. It cancelled out a huge loss to give us stagnation instead of collapse. That's what a stimulus does.

[AggregateDemand]

You're the one who brought up 10M @ 100,000. Obviously it's stupid, and your QE boogeyman nonsense doesn't even deserve a response.

$1 trillion didn't show up as +$1 trillion flat because the economy was contracting without it. We were probably going to lose about a trillion in real GDP if we did nothing. It cancelled out a huge loss to give us stagnation instead of collapse. That's what a stimulus does.

You said they would have jobs then be unemployed, which suggests you don't understand how stimulus spending or monetary expansion works.

I asked people to consider the effect of $1T directly invested in the labor market. Then I compared direct investment to the effect of $7T spent during the Obama presidency. This has been a tepid recovery for labor, probably because the admin hasn't been spending stimulus funds to stimulate employment.

[Lief 🗽]

Lief: Thanks Obama!

Yes! Thank you Mr. President for this great bounty of jobs you have bestowed upon us!

Too bad that now that the economy is growing again, no one seems to want to talk about it or give Obama any credit.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Lief: Thanks Obama!

Yes! Thank you Mr. President for this great bounty of jobs you have bestowed upon us!

Too bad that now that the economy is growing again, no one seems to want to talk about it or give Obama any credit.

Well, to be fair, wages are still crap and the manufacturing sector is devastated despite the trickle of jobs coming back in that sector. :/

[Frodo]

Anyone want to hazard a guess where the (official) unemployment rate will be by January 2017?  A little over 4%?

[Maxwell]

Lief: Thanks Obama!

Yes! Thank you Mr. President for this great bounty of jobs you have bestowed upon us!

Too bad that now that the economy is growing again, no one seems to want to talk about it or give Obama any credit.

Well, to be fair, wages are still crap and the manufacturing sector is devastated despite the trickle of jobs coming back in that sector. :/

We're about that point in our economic structuring that Manufacturing is going to keep going down and Service jobs will continue to go up anyways.

[DC Al Fine]

Anyone want to hazard a guess where the (official) unemployment rate will be by January 2017?  A little over 4%?

Possibly assuming there's not another recession.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Anyone want to hazard a guess where the (official) unemployment rate will be by January 2017?  A little over 4%?

Well, I'd say above 4.5%, because when unemployment begins dropping towards 5%, I'm guessing that the much-lamented "discouraged workers" will enter the labor force again, attracted by jobs and rising wages, and this could cause the rate to hold around 5%. Through every recent economic expansion, it takes a while for unemployment to get through to 5%, as what happened in the mid-1990s, late-1980s, early 1970s, and early-/mid-60s when U3 bounced around in the 5 - 5.6% range before finally dropping below.

Also, when unemployment starts dropping in the low-5% range, the Federal Reserve will probably begin to raise interest rates, and this could cause a soft landing as the economy takes a breather, like what happened in 1995 after the economy did crazy good in 1994.

I'm guessing 5.5% at the high end and 4.5% at the low end if the economy keeps growing between 2% and 3% per year. If forced to pick a percentage, I'd go with 5.2%.