US Unemployment is 5.5%
 

Another drop. Surprise.

Cue Vendzilla to tell us how we've been calculating unemployment wrong all of this time, or how less people are looking for jobs, or something.

You do realize that people automatically drop off the unemployed list as soon as their benefits run out, right? They don't have to be employed to not be counted as unemployed.

If someone is unemployed and has given up on finding a job -- if you are out of work and you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed.

While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and may never find a job again, you are not counted in the feel good figure we see in the news -- currently 5.5%.

Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed.


.

You do realize over 250k new jobs have been added for 10 consecutive months straight? Something that hasnt happened since 1970. Guess you're not happy unless a republican is driving the economy off a cliff.

You do realize that you've been saying the same shit since 2009 right?

:1orglaugh

Sure but its been counted that way for a couple decades now so does it even matter anymore?

Don't forget about the total collapse of the US Dollar and the US economy.

http://quotes.ino.com/charting/histo...=15&a=50&v=d12

Also don't forget: Today's heros can be tomorow's shitheads :upsidedow

Here we go again...... blind believers in action.

https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...s-job-lie.html

And?

If you collect unemployment for years and cannot find a job although we create millions of jobs every year.... At a certain point you either just aren't trying enough, or are unemployable. Or both.

30 million out of work and 250k new jobs is supposed to mean something? Think drop and bucket.

And some still don't get it.

Where are people given unemployment for years? California has a 6 month cap. And we are creating millions of jobs every year? Where did you read that?

Go Team!

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/...March-2015.jpg

The Federalist had a nice graphic so I used it, but I'm sure Clampett will stop by to call me a "right winger" for that :)
Here are the Labor Force Participation figures from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics (you know... The Government) :winkwink:
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

It's never been in goverment's interest to tell you the whole truth, question everything. :2 cents:

Nice twist....


http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/ima...roll030615.png

I thought businesses didn't create jobs?

Out of that thirty million people, how many of them are both employable and actively looking for work? How many of them do not need to work because they are supported by their spouses? How many of them are students? How many of them are just unable to work? My best friend hasn't worked in over twenty years but I wouldn't consider him unemployed. My mother was a stay at home mom, never worked, but she was never "unemployed" - she just didn't need to work. My other brother just opened up a new business. Technically he is unemployed - he has yet to pull a paycheck from his new business. His wife supports him.

Thirty million people are "out of work". But a fair percentage of those people are not looking for work because they do not need to work.

You understand other states have other rules, right? He lives in Oregon, and you can collect unemployment for 99 weeks. (I looked it up for ya.)

Can you not do math?

Last month we added 295k jobs. Multiple that by 12 months and..... Over three million jobs created. However, that is only using one month as an example. Last November we added 423k jobs. If you want an exact total, in the past year we have created 3,202,000 jobs.

When did I ever say that?

Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife said that.


.

There are definitely many more jobs than there were 8 years ago. The jobs pay less than the jobs that were lost 12 years ago. Anyone who thinks Bush and Obama are very different also thinks Classic CocaCola and NewCoke are very different... because they fail to understand they are both owned by the exact same small group of people.

You are voting for Classic Coke or New Coke... you have no choice to vote for Milk or Bourbon. These arguments are nonsense, because your vote is being taken away from you, and instead of being angry that your vote barely counts, you'd rather argue why Classic Coke or New Coke are better... and the people who own both brands could care less who wins in most cases.

If someone has given up looking for a job, then it's their problem not the govt's. People seem to be entitled in thinking that because they had a job making X amount, that they should replace that job with the same amount or more..

Sorry guys "real world" kicking in here.. If you can't pay your bills and can't find a job making what you would "like" to make then you either starve or you get off your ass and take what ever job you can get.

If there are no jobs where you live then you move.. If "YOU" choose to live in an area which has no jobs, then it is "YOU" whom are to blame not the govt or anyone else.

Opportunity is out there if "YOU" want it.

Yes, Walmart is always hiring and Burger King is always looking for a few good men. :1orglaugh

Very easy to say for a young single guy who has travelled extensively.


.

Yes, the real world IS OUT THERE and finally coming to America!

America is continuing it's downward spiral to 3rd world status and while you might not see the big picture those high paying jobs are NOT coming back. They are gone.

Yes, the real world is going to continue and very few people want to live in the real world when they have lived their entire lives with a delusional Disney World mentality! :1orglaugh

I don't understand why we still have crisis level interest rates.

At this point in my live, I travel as a way of life. I do this, not because I'm rich or have a sugar moma, but because I have chosen to do what it takes to live my life how I see fit.

I've run a few businesses some did good some did bad. I've also worked $10/hr jobs if I had to, I simply do what ever I need to do in order to survive. Be that if I'm living in a house, running a business or traveling around the country.

The one thing I've learned is that I will never again be a slave to the grind. Be that working 9 to 5 or working 15 hour days trying to run a business. I would much rather enjoy my life than be a slave to house payments, car payments ect..ect..

This is something I choose to do, just like those people whom buy their little McMansions, brand new cars every 2 years & have their house furnished via their credit card and need to bust their ass till they are 65 in hopes of retiring. That is their choice. If they can't pay for it, it was still their choice no one else's.

I wouldn't say a downward spiral, but everyone seems to think the economy will always grow which it wont. It will have ups & downs and people need to be capable of surviving in both. This lifestyle of constant debt which so many Americans live in, is not sustainable.

I would love to agree with you but I am much to busy watching my sixty inch TV while talking on my thousand dollar cell phone while updating my FB status on my tablet.

People who say stuff like this haven't been to a third world country.

You do realize that this figure must be taken along with the job creation number for the month(295 000) right ?

How about employment rate (from workforce)? That is measured too, at least around here.

"Employment rate

The ratio of employed persons to the population of the same age. The employment rate of the total population is calculated as the ratio of 15 to 64-year-old employed persons to the population of the same age."

Statistikcentralen - Concepts and definitions - Employment rate


Here are some US statistics about that.

"64.4 63.7 62.7 62.3 62.4 62.7 63.1 63.0 62.2 59.3 58.5 58.4 58.6 58.6" Last one being 2013.

Employment-to-population ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5,5% is bullshit

Enjoy it while you can. The next generation of Americans will not be so fortunate. :thumbsup

eh... Is this coming from you?! I have to say I completely agree!

It would be nice if the government didn't feel they had to help take care of these lazy fucks who give up looking and settle for welfare. I would vote to "let them starve" as you said :)

Opportunity yes, jobs for everyone; no.

No one feeds himself with opportunity; it gotta materialize too. At 2013; less than 60 % of American work aged folks had job. Not that far from the situation that half ain't have job. Lazy bastards or not; in the end that doesn't matter that much.

:2 cents:

Weeeeeeeeeeeee! :upsidedow :1orglaugh

How can we make new jobs, and we still always have 10% unemployed... You suck at math. That is the issue. Seriously, check around the economy is cranking.

I don't agree with long term welfare either. I believe in helping people whom need help to get on their feet (ie someone whom is willing to help themselves) I also have no issues at all helping the disabled or elderly. Those are the types of people whom every civilized society should try to help.

I do not however condone helping habitual welfare queens or people whom just expect handouts. I've always felt welfare should be time limited and not a never ending thing.

I do however see the problem with that line of thinking when kids are involved, which is why we have the welfare queens that we have and I don't know of a solution around that. Hence the reason with the current system we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I do think that people on welfare should have to do some sort of work or civic duty in order to receive it. Start making people clean streets, clean up the beaches, parks, do janitorial work at public buildings ect..ect to get their welfare check and you just watch how fast they go get a job..

Here is the big thing that drives everyone into a frenzy. Job participation is at a multi year low. But it was at an all time high before the crisis. As baby boomers retire, it is going to get worse. But there is no hidden 30% without jobs who want them. That 30 some percent has always been there and was even bigger in the past. It is wives and old people with some unemployable.

Oops the link
62.8%: Labor Force Participation Has Hovered Near 37-Year-Low for 11 Months | CNS News

The job participation is not calculated from the whole population, so old folks don't count if they are over 64. Neither do count under 15 years olds. Wives between 15-64 do count, or "home daddys", or whatever. They may not want a job to start with; great, as there is no jobs for them. So, put it however you want it.


EDIT: Oops, that labor force participation rate is some special US number. Not employment rate used usually. No wonder it showed better numbers than employment rate.

You should use this.

"The employment-population ratio is many American economists' favorite gauge of the American jobs picture[citation needed]. According to Paul Ashworth, chief North American economist for Capital Economics, "The employment population ratio is the best measure of labor market conditions."[1] This is a statistical ratio that measures the proportion of the country's working-age population (ages 15 to 64 in most OECD countries) that is employed."

Employment-to-population ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gee, isn't that exactly what my parent's generation said? And the generation before them?

I think at a certain age you look around you and you don't like what you see, just because it's different. I don't like it when young men wear their pants so low I can see their boxers but that surely doesn't mean the world is going to end or that the US will become a third world nation.

Seems to me there are a lot of single mothers out there, and kids from broken homes... Shit, that's EXACTLY what my parents used to complain about.

The next generation will live even better than we do. They will look back and remember our sixty inch TV as being "cute" now that they have video walls, or they will laugh at us because we had to carry cell phones around with us. You know, just like we mock people who used to own encyclopedia books.

There are dozens of possible explanations... so it's impossible to draw any conclusions from the "employment-population ratio"...

maybe more people are choosing to retire earlier (before 64) causing the ratio to drop?
maybe households are feeling wealthier now, so only one person wants/needs to work instead of 2? maybe more people are choosing different paths in life, starting a business, investing, or perhaps pursuing arts instead of "working"? maybe social standards are changing, so maybe it's more acceptable not to work? maybe younger generation are less materialistic, so they are less interested in work? maybe more people are choosing to study instead of work? etc...

so... claiming that low "employment-population ratio" proves there is no work available is a bit of a stretch... there are dozens of alternative equally possible explanations...

not to mention that whole premise of "employment-population ratio" is debatable, is high or low number good? look at 2 households,

1. husband works 40 hours a week, makes $100k/year
wife doesn't work
"employment-population ratio" = 50%

2. both work 40 hours a week, making $50k each
"employment-population ratio" = 100%

isn't household 1 better off? and yet their "employment-population ratio" is half of the 2nd one....

Be careful! You'll invite the republicans and other Obama haters and OOOP- too damn late.

Generally I avoid politics conversations on forum boards but I can't resist. Regardless of how unemployment is calculated the reality is that it has been calculated that way for MANY MANY years. Its not like just with this President have they not counted certain groups of people. It has always been done like that. Not that I am a huge Obama fan persay but seems people give him more shit than past Presidents that had WAY less steady growth and improvement.

Yes we had a few bad years but there has been a steady improvement. While one could argue for days what caused the huge shift in unemployment rising at the end of 2008 the numbers don't lie. We are looking better, steadily, using the same unemployment factoring that has been used for decades.




Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1990 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.3
1991 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.3
1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.8 9.3
2011 9.2 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.9
2013 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2014 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.2 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.6
2015 5.7 5.5

Yep, that is where it is the government's issue. They have too much of a safety net in place, which makes it easier for these lazy bastards to just stay at home, collect the check and watch tv, surf the web and play video games.

The 25 to 54 year olds ratio is at a 6 year high.

25 to 54 is at 77%.
Over 55 is at 33%.
Every year more baby boomers cross that border. We can debate the other facts but that one there is pretty powerful as far as this goes.

that makes 110% ... not counting 1 to 24 ...:warning

He's saying 77% of the 100% eligible 24-55 year old are employed. Not out of the 100% possible all ages.

yawnnnnnnnnn..

I do not understand why this is a political conversation. It isn't.

We've determined the unemployment rate the same way since the beginning of time, so we must use the same method to compare it to past months and years.

It's obvious that the unemployment rate was going to drop (a lot) and the economy was going to get much better. Both of these two couldn't have gotten much worse no matter how bad the President fucked up.

While Fox news might be telling us the economy sucks, even the Republican party has given up on using the economy as a debating issue. That ship has sailed.

This isn't a political issue. I want the economy to do better no matter what party is in the white house.

I agree.

My older brother collected two years of unemployment because he could. He didn't need to work, did the bare minimum to keep getting the benefits, and when they ran out it was no big deal.

Another friend works full time under the table and feeds his family using food stamps.

Come to think of it, how many people are working full time under the table but still list themselves as unemployed?