Jobless Claims Sink To Near 43 Year Low

[Stuart G]

Source: Reuters.com

The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits fell last week to near a 43-year low, suggesting labor market resilience even though hiring slowed sharply in May.

The drop in jobless claims could give Federal Reserve officials more confidence that job growth will pick up.

Fed Chair Janet Yellen told lawmakers on Tuesday that the U.S. central bank believed the slowdown in non-farm payroll gains was "transitory," noting that "several other timely indicators of labor market conditions still look favorable."

"Overall labor market conditions are not as bad as one might assume based on May's non-farm payroll print alone," said Jim Baird, chief investment officer at Plante Moran Financial Advisors in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits declined 18,000 to a seasonally adjusted 259,000 for the week ended June 18, the Labor Department said on Thursday


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-jobless-idUSKCN0Z91CB

---

While incomes have not gone up enough (or at all for many). there are jobs out there

[Silver_Witch]

1. This numbers are all manipulated!!

What about all those working service jobs that used to be teachers, engineers, and tech people? Those working two part-time jobs to stay afloat. And what about those of us doing the work of two or three so our companies don't have to hire new workers without an increase in wages for five years!

Frankly I tired of this misrepresentation of the true picture!!

[bhikkhu]

3. The "true picture" is large and complex

and there's a difference between manipulating numbers and looking at just one number. Jobless claims is just one number, of course, and only one piece of the picture.

Your general sentiment is shared by the IMF lately, in their concerns about the US poverty rate. Their recent article is good read, closer to a "true picture": http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2016/062216.htm?hootPostID=18e8167f3a04eeed8b9f5573e0225dd2 .

Things are good for some, not so bad for most, and very hard for many. Still, the recent numbers are good news. If last month's bad jobs report was the beginning of a bad trend rather than a temporary anomaly in the numbers, we'd expect to see jobless claims get worse rather than better. It looks like they are better.

[padfun]

5. Well, in California, there are TONS of available jobs where I am at.

And you only need to work 40 hours a week, with good benefits.

Granted, It is working for a Socialist Government Job, but if you don't mind that, there are plenty. My group needs 14 IT people, (8 on a help desk, 4 programmers and 2 SharePoint Admins) and that is a very small part of the State Government. Sacramento County has many openings, and I am sure that the city does as well. And we have people retiring all the time opening up more positions and many other non IT positions as well. (I am a programmer) There are just WAY too many positions available out there.

I know that people cant just move to California on a whim, but maybe your own State Government has a ton of openings (maybe not some Red States like Kansas, but others for sure.) And if your state doesn't, then maybe you should all vote in Democrats instead of having Repubs obstructing job openings.

It gets harder and harder for me to feel for those unemployed and underemployed when there are just too many jobs that pay well out there, and no IT experience isn't a good excuse. If you are online and understand even the basics of a computer, you can find a place in IT.

[whatthehey]

6. Well let's see

A) This metric is about initial claims, a proxy for recent layoffs and thus unconnected to your complaints, but nevertheless...

B) Median and average pay have been increasing in real terms (aka inflation-adjusted) for years, even when you exclude management, which would not be the case if overall job market was trending from higher to lower paying jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t01.htm

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab8.htm

C) The number of people working multiple jobs has stayed remarkably stable since before the recession, and thus is now a smaller percentage (because more people are working, so the denominator has increased). Studies have shown multiple jobs are driven more by opportunity than need and, surprisingly even to me, increase with educational attainment (in other words the higher educated higher paid crowd works multiple jobs more than the low education low pay bloc.)

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab16.htm

D) Compensation is increasing at right around inflation on average. If a given group of workers have had zer increases for five years, on average a similar sized group must have been seeing double inflation raises (again not CEO-driven, in fact production, transportation and materials did well above average)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm

[jiminvegas]

13. Okay, you have the facts on your side

But, umm, Benghazi?

[Silver_Witch]

38. That is funny...you use BLS to support your point of view.

These numbers are total bogus. The "rate of inflation" is also bogus. We have seen inflation in rent increases and cost of food. They use fuel to manipulate the numbers. So we "don't have any inflation and so we don't need a raise." My boss uses it every year...the increase is 1% cause that is the cost of living increase and yet milk has gone from $3 to nearly $6 and yet the BLS says it is only $3 and has fallen in the last year. What a joke.

Sorry your argument is a fail.

[padfun]

41. I dont know where you live

but I just bought two gallons and it was $2.89 per gallon. So either you are getting ripped off, or you live in Hawaii.

And yes, even gas is still less than $3.00 per gallon. Even my weed is cheaper now. So I don't know where you live but maybe you need to look at yourself and your situation before coming here and trying to make like you live in a hut in Ethiopia.

Edit: And I bought that milk at Raley's, not exactly a discount grocery mart.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

42. Cost of Living - Thanks for reminding me.

CPI for all items increases 0.2% in May as energy, shelter increases outweigh food decline

Too late for LBN. I'll put it in the Economy Forum:

CPI for all items increases 0.2% in May as energy, shelter increases outweigh food decline

[TwilightZone]

49. Where do you live where milk is $6 a gallon?

The US average is currently $3.67.

If you have to make stuff up, your argument isn't going to be terribly compelling.

"These numbers are total bogus."

Yes. Yes, they are.

[Silver_Witch]

52. $5.49 a gsallons at Safeway in San Diego Ca today

It is on sale at Ralph's for 4.50 if you are a member and buy 2/boxes cereal.

So I am NOT a liar. Calling people liars because you don't like what they say it ride and proves your whole premise is false!!

Sorry I work long hours and know where every penny goes and what things cost.

[TwilightZone]

53. $4.50 is not $6.00

Neither is $5.49.

Milk prices are lower than they've been in years: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ap

2006 3.197 3.224 3.161 3.123 3.066 3.001 3.083 3.019 3.049 3.064 2.985 3.004
2007 3.067 3.083 3.072 3.135 3.259 3.427 3.736 3.807 3.841 3.838 3.904 3.870
2008 3.871 3.869 3.781 3.799 3.760 3.773 3.961 3.886 3.773 3.656 3.734 3.681
2009 3.575 3.319 3.116 3.084 3.068 3.009 2.992 2.979 2.981 3.046 3.034 3.105
2010 3.236 3.203 3.188 3.140 3.178 3.297 3.313 3.303 3.278 3.321 3.327 3.318
2011 3.301 3.357 3.503 3.597 3.653 3.622 3.654 3.713 3.715 3.622 3.557 3.565
2012 3.583 3.520 3.499 3.474 3.427 3.396 3.428 3.474 3.469 3.524 3.536 3.580
2013 3.526 3.480 3.431 3.428 3.441 3.458 3.449 3.448 3.428 3.462 3.491 3.501
2014 3.552 3.561 3.669 3.687 3.735 3.626 3.645 3.673 3.732 3.766 3.858 3.820
2015 3.758 3.496 3.463 3.397 3.387 3.366 3.430 3.389 3.392 3.338 3.299 3.310
2016 3.313 3.230 3.187 3.155 3.157

[Silver_Witch]

54. Wow that is your response???

$5.49 is pretty fucking closing. Excuse me for rounding up and not getting you an exact price yesterday. Working impeads my posting.

And 4.50 has limitation so it is a loss leader. The truth is prices are going up and the CPI and LAbor numbers are manipulated. The truth is at the store And in our paychecks!


Really that is your response. What a rude person. You can't just admit you calling me a liar is wrong. Or me pointing out reality ruins your narrative. Wow!

[TwilightZone]

55. Your anecdotal evidence vs. real data

Sorry, real data wins. Prices at two stores in San Diego that you hand-selected represent nothing more than two stores in San Diego that you hand-selected. Nationally, milk prices have been relatively consistent for a decade or more.

[rock]

83. You had me at "anecdotal"

[GummyBearz]

2. This is getting to the absurd

The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits fell last week to near a 43-year low, even though the population has grown by 100million people since 1973 (~200million then to ~300million now)???

We are approaching North Korea like propaganda numbers.

Keep in mind the line reads *number of Americans*, not percentage.

[padfun]

7. I have to agree with the report

WAY too many job opportunities out there. There is no excuse for not finding one anymore. And the average pay is very livable, around 45,000 to 90,000 per year, depending on where you start.

[GummyBearz]

8. You have a california flag

$45,000 salary isn't livable in any city I've lived in since I moved out of Bakersfield after high school.

[padfun]

14. Those are the lowest jobs

such as OA or OT (Office Assistant and Office Technician.) These are the entry level positions that are minimum wage in the private world. $45,000 is very livable in Sacramento and even in Bakersfield. That comes to a gross of about $3700 per month and a net of about $2300. Not great pay by any means but it is much better than the minimum wage jobs in the private world and is livable in these cities where you can still find a one bedroom apartment for $800.

And most people who start low, know or learn how to take the exams and promote to a higher wage job. The opportunities are there for those who bother to look.

Edit: the OA and OT jobs are lower than $45,000 and as low as $23,000 but they are there for those with no education or skill set. If you have either of those, then you can go for the higher paying jobs as soon as you start.

[GummyBearz]

15. At least you are adding in all the qualifiers now

Can't live in the bay area, can't live in LA, can't live in orange county, can't live in san diego, can't buy a house in Bakersfield (can only afford a 1 BR apartment), need to continue education at the same time as working in order to increase salary. Sounds about right.

[padfun]

20. Yes, we all have to do that.

I am about to retire, but am applying for some promotional management positions right now, mostly so that my pension will be a bit bigger.


As for buying a house, that is going to be rough for the younger workers out there. It will take two family incomes to be able to do that. At least you know that you need to continue education. Good jobs require a continual educational path anyway. I am scheduled for two coming software classes, C# (5 days) and K2 BlackPearl (2 days.) I usually have several classes throughout the year. If you are in hardware, then you would be taking Cisco classes instead.

Good luck to you. You seem to have your on head straight. We need more people like that to make this a better world.

[GummyBearz]

24. Thank you for the good wishes

I got a PhD (hardware, wireless communication system engineering) and don't plan to take another class unless it involves finger painting or maybe water balloon fighting strategies. I do have 2 incomes but my wife's income entirely goes into paying her student loans. All that said, we have it far better than most, which is why I think there is an income problem that needs fixing. Even though it wouldn't help me out now, I remember living on $500/month in college... its tough skipping meals to make sure your rent check will clear.

[Silver_Witch]

39. You do realize there are people who can't afford education - Right?

Wow talk about privilege. You sum it up completely.

[padfun]

40. Neither could I

So I went to Junior College and got an Associate Degree in Computer Science and got it when I was 35. Like I said, I grew up poor. The total cost was less than $500. So that is not an excuse.

Besides, we have this thing called the Internet. You might want to really use it sometime. I mean other than trying to claw people down who have actually accomplished something.

I mean talk about lack of ambition and full of excuses for failure, you sum it up completely.

[padfun]

21. As for San Diego and SF

Even I cant afford a house in either of those two cities. You definitely need two incomes to live there. Oakland is livable on a low wage, as is San Jose. But the peninsula, forget it!

You can always find something in LA but it might not be the in the best neighborhoods. I grew up poor so I can adjust to those, but for many, those places are unsettling to live in.

[Throd]

78. $45K is livable in Sac?

What shithole part of town would that be?

[padfun]

79. Just about any of the South Area, and North Highlands

If you make 45,000, then you will just have to settle for renting an apartment. We all did that in our lives. If you want to own a home, then you would need a higher income.

Making 45K is about $2,600 net and that can be livable if you rent, which there are plenty of places here for under $1000 per month.

[Throd]

80. If you're single and don't mind having your car broken into from time to time.

You can get an apartment in a non-scary area of Citrus Heights or Orangevale, but there won't be much left after paying rent.

[Android3.14]

9. Doesn't that mean this is even BETTER news?

If the raw numbers fell to 1973 levels, wouldn't that mean the percentage of today's unemployed is even lower than 1973?

What is the propaganda message here?

[GummyBearz]

11. My point was

If the percent of unemployed was at the same level as back in 1973 I could believe it. But the fact that there are an extra 100 million people in this country, as compared to 1973, and some how less TOTAL people are unemployed, makes no freaking sense unless the numbers are doctored up (which they have been since 1980).

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. Oh, I see what the issue is.

What this article is about is this week's release by the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA) that "{i}nitial claims for state unemployment benefits declined 18,000 to a seasonally adjusted 259,000."

You're conflating that number with the number of people who are unemployed. For that figure, find one of my threads on the monthly unemployment data, which are compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Here's June's: Unemployment rate declines to 4.7% in May; payroll employment changes little (+38,000)

HTH. Best wishes.

[Recursion]

26. You're confusing initial claims with total unemployed

Those are largely unrelated questions. Though the unemployment rate is at an historic low also.

[GummyBearz]

29. Ok. Call it initial claims

How can we have 100 million more people and lower initial claims? It still doesn't make any freaking sense

[Recursion]

33. Because the economy today is much better than it was in the 1970s

Not only are there more jobs per person available, those jobs pay higher real wages.

Economically this is the best time, ever, to be working in the US.

[GummyBearz]

34. ROFL

Yea, if you are from India

[Recursion]

35. Feel free to post an actual metric by which things are worse than the past (and there are a couple)

Then, we could actually make arguments about why I think the many metrics by which we're better are more important than the few by which we're worse.

Or, you know, you could just make snide comments about where I'm stationed for work, if you're out of actual arguments.

[OrwellwasRight]

56. Excuse me?

The unemployment rate is at a historic low?

No, it's not. It was far lower in the post-war years when the economy was growing at a fast clip, as were wages.

Remember when 2% unemployment was considered full employment? I do. Now 5% unemployment is considered full employment. We're close to 5% now. That's not historically low.

DU seems to have bee flooded in the past week by folks who do not understand what it means to be struggling in an economy of low growth, low job creation, low wage growth, low union density, declining fringe benefits, etc.

Just telling us the economy is great does not change the actual facts.

[Recursion]

58. I'll bite: when was 2% unemployment considered full employment?

Before the 1990s 5.5% was considered full employment AFAIK.

[OrwellwasRight]

59. That's not any thing I am familiar with until this century

5.5% is actually fairly high (at least as the US counts it -- they have higher unemployment rates in Europe as they count it differently). Advocates for higher wages say we need to get it down to 2-4%.

My high school econ textbook said 2%, but here in this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment) it shows the #s have been all over the place:

Tobin: 0%

William Beveridge: 3%

US since the 2000s: 5.5%

OECD: as high as > 6%

US Law: The United States is, as a statutory matter, committed to full employment (defined as 3% unemployment for persons aged 20 and older, 4% for persons aged 16 and over); the government is empowered to effect this goal.[12] The relevant legislation is the Employment Act (1946), initially the "Full Employment Act," later amended in the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act (1978).

[Recursion]

60. OECD went as high as 8% in the 1980s

Last edited Sat Jun 25, 2016, 09:06 PM - Edit history (2)

I remember in the 1990s people saying we had to redefine "full employment" because the unemployment rate was dropping below the 8% that used to be considered "full employment"

[OrwellwasRight]

61. My recollection was that people were desperate in the 1980s

and no one considered the level of unemployment acceptable. I guess whose numbers you believe depends on what your view is of how the economy is working. However, the OECD formula is not the same as the US formula. Again, the acceptable number has generally crept up over time as the economy became more and more dominated by corporate and financial interests that pressured the govt to accept higher unemployment to keep inflation low.

[Recursion]

62. At any rate, my original point stands that by historical measures 4.9% is "low"

I can't think of many periods outside of fighting a two-ocean war where it was lower.

[OrwellwasRight]

63. Good for you.

Glad that what works for you is good enough for your struggling fellow human beings.

[Recursion]

64. Well, I'm certainly glad people are objectively better off than they were 20 years ago

You aren't?

[OrwellwasRight]

65. The thing is, they aren't.

Wages have been flat for 20 years. People have put on credit cards purchases they cannot afford with actual wages. The middle class lost billions upon billions in wealth because of the great recession. The elites have their money back, the rest of us don't. But again, good for you. Well done!

[Recursion]

66. The thing is they are.

Wages (and incomes) rose at every quintile more over the past 20 years than they did over the 20 years before that.

[OrwellwasRight]

67. again, actually not

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/m/?src=&w=640

[Recursion]

68. That agrees with me

The loss to the bottom fifth happened between 1971 and 1994 (actually a much bigger loss) and has been made up some since 1994. Again: the 20 years from 1996 to 2016 saw bigger income increases at all quintiles than the years from 1976 to 1996. For that matter the years from 1976 to 1996 saw a loss for the lowest quintile, and they saw a gain from 1996 to 2016.

If your argument is that the 20 years before that were better, with the caveat that that only applied to the predominantly white male "on the books" economy, I'd agree.

[OrwellwasRight]

69. perhaps you don't understand the chart

It says the bottom 20% actually got poorer from 1973-2011. That is the opposite of growth. That is shrinkage. And every other quintile had less growth than they had had previously. So no we are not all better off. But thank you again for playing.

[Recursion]

70. And I agree that happened, and I'm still right

My statement was "The 20 years from 1996 to 2016 were better than the 20 years from 1976 to 1996". This is true.

It's also true that from 1973 to 2011, the lowest quintile saw wage decreases. However, 2011 was the nadir of the lowest quintile's income (it's since come up) and (you're really dodging this point) those losses, and more, happened in the 20 years before 1996, not after.

Again, you seem to be arguing that the years from 1947 to 1973 were better than the years from 1973 to 2011, which I don't disagree with (as long as we're limiting this to white males, which the data from 1947 to 1965 pretty much do). I'm pointing out that the years from 1996 to 2016 were better than the years from 1976 to 1996.

[OrwellwasRight]

71. You are arguing that 2011 to present

reversed the 40 years of income loss of 1973 to 2011? Nice data.

[Recursion]

72. Not at all. We're talking about two different time frames

The lowest quintile lost income from 1973 to 2011.

The lowest quintile gained income from 1996 to 2016.

Both of these are true statements, and my original statement that 1996-2016 was a better run than 1976-1996 is also a true statement, and none of them contradict each other.

Where do you see any conflict there? The biggest part of the drop from 1973 to 2011 happened between 1973 and 1994.

[OrwellwasRight]

73. Still no data?

[Recursion]

74. Happily. Here's from BLS, though it's just the lowest three white and African American quintiles

If you're actually interested you can go here:

https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/income/data/tables.2011.html

and here:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm

and go through the spreadsheets.

So, take the poorest white quintile (this is all in 2014 dollars):



As you can see they are making about what they were in 1996 but less than they were in 1973. Which, again, means the past two decades were better for them than the two decades before.

If you look at the poorest three quintiles of both black and white earners:



you'll see stagnation in the 1970s and 1980s, a huge increase in the 1990s, and then stagnation again.

Here's a gender-divided one that makes a similar point:

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Did I hear Republicans saying "Marxist Kenyan" for 8 years? Did tRump say something like that?

[rhett o rick]

10. I look around and see lots of people looking for work that isn't there. The numbers at the

foodbank are up and donations down. Unemployment runs out and people stop looking for work, that helps the statistics look better. I don't see a lot of jobs esp with benefits. And some Democrats are supporting holding down the min wage.

[maxsolomon]

18. Funny, I look around and see Contractors desperate to find crews

to keep up with the demand. At the same time I see more and more homeless nodding out on the streets.

Doom and gloom never go out of style on DU.

[rhett o rick]

22. Really? You think the homeless you see on the streets can work contractor work?

The people I am speaking of looking for work are in their 30's or 40's and need more than Obama's $10.10 per hour to feed their families. I doubt your contractor would pay them extra for their college educations. People are dying of poverty in this country and it sounds like you don't believe it. There are 2.5 million homeless children. This is the status quo that some love so much.

[maxsolomon]

25. did i say that? no, i didn't.

I know that contractors need crews. I hear about regularly. there are jobs out there, and a low unemployment rate is a good thing. It puts pressure on wages. In theory, at least.

At the same time, I live in a $15 min. wage city in the middle of a housing crisis. I am aware of the plight of the homeless. I see homeless who are so deep in addiction that they are essentially useless to society, and likely will be for the remainder of their lives. Chronic alcoholics, junkies, tweakers, untreated schizophrenics - they are disabled.

[rhett o rick]

32. What city has $15 min wage?????

[maxsolomon]

43. seattle is phasing it in

it hasn't curbed the opiate epidemic however

[rhett o rick]

45. Seattle does not have a $15 / hour min wage. It's currently only $13 for major corporations and

much less for small businesses. Even for the largest employers, there are a number of exceptions to the Seattle minimum wage law.

[maxsolomon]

47. jesus, you win

i concede: everything is terrible. go ahead and swear trump in.

see post #28.

[rhett o rick]

51. For the record I am not Jesus. If I was, I'd encourage the Democrats to support a higher

min wage. And just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I support Trump.

I can't see post #28, who wrote it?

[maxsolomon]

75. $15 just put into the party platform

as a concession to Bernie. there's an OP about it.

[OrwellwasRight]

57. So what are you saying?

That Clinton only wins if we all take some Paxil and pretend the "Economy is Great!" (TM)???

What hogwash.

How about telling the truth about neoliberal-induced secular stagnation, which is holding back growth, jobs, and wages around the globe? That might help Clinton actually win moreso than pretending the sky is purple.

[maxsolomon]

76. be my guest. i'm sure you'll find receptive ears.

the problem is: that's not the way to win.

1. you say "neoliberal" and most people's eyes glaze over. you say "neoliberal-induced secular stagnation", and nearly everyone's eyes glaze over.

2. when running for president, it is best to behave as if things are getting better, or can get better, and script your rhetoric to match. hence Obama's "Hope". I'd suggest Clinton trumpet the "lowest UE rate in 43 years" rather than "the economy has been globally restructured to serve the .1%, and good paying blue collar jobs are never coming back to America".

one thing Trump actually knows is that Americans don't want to hear the truth. they want Paxil.

[OrwellwasRight]

91. Disagree --

That's why we lost seats in midterm elections. Obama was so busy running around tooting his own horn about how great the economy was, that people felt he was out of touch with their reality. If people are struggling and you run around saying everything's peachy, they know you are out of touch and don't live in their world. They don't vote for you. It doesn't work.

[Motley13]

87. Seattle for one

N/t

[rhett o rick]

88. Bullcrap. Seattle will PHASE IN $15 per hour over the next few years and only for the

big corporations. NO CITY HAS CURRENTLY A $15 MIN WAGE. LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES.

[rhett o rick]

84. Day Ja View. You've said this before and I responded that the homeless nodding out

on the streets wouldn't do a contractor any good. Nor would those that are 50 years old and recently laid off from the hardware store.

I bet you think they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, too, don't you.

[liberal N proud]

77. I see lots of hiring signs

[rhett o rick]

85. And from your sample you deduce that the isn't an unemployment or underemployment problem

in this country. The true unemployment is over 9% and the underemployment is also very high and getting higher.

[MaggieD]

90. Lots of jobs in the Seattle area

And they pay good too!

[ileus]

12. the hope of finding a good job has also sunk to a 43 year low...that's the bad news.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

17. Cite please. NT

[maxsolomon]

19. tell it to the 25 year old tech kids making more than me

that we're building offices for as fast as we can churn them out.

[rhett o rick]

23. Seems you are missing the point here. There are millions out of work that want work.

Sure there are a few "tech kids" but that's it. The jobs that have been moved overseas has left people in their 50's with nothing.

[maxsolomon]

27. I think YOU are missing the point

those people in their 50s need to get back out there and on the rolls if they want to make this statistic reflect what you believe is the situation. it can't count discouraged workers.

nothing Obama has accomplished is ever good enough for DU. always finding the negative. he can't fix a structural reorganization of the global economy. especially if congress won't play ball and enforces austerity.

[rhett o rick]

31. His min wage he gave some federal employees was $10.10. How low can you go?

If we are going to ship jobs overseas we should at least give a min wage of about $15 per hour. The Big Corporations are loving Obama.

[brentspeak]

37. One of the dumbest posts I've ever read on DU

And that's saying a lot.

those people in their 50s need to get back out there and on the rolls if they want to make this statistic reflect what you believe is the situation. it can't count discouraged workers.

[maxsolomon]

44. can that statistic count discouraged workers, then?

this relentless drumbeat of "never good enough" will lead us to Trump.

thanks for the insult, i'll be sure and remark on as many of your genius posts as possible with the same.

[rhett o rick]

46. You have it backwards. What will lead us to Trump is a reluctance of Democrats to provide

a decent min wage. Raising the min wage will help the local economies, what's holding us back? Why did Obama limit his min wage increase to $10.10?

[maxsolomon]

48. because he felt it was achievable?

that number is a non-starter with the know-nothings, regardless. they'd eliminate the min wage if they could.

[rhett o rick]

50. Achievable? What? He did it by executive order.

[Recursion]

28. My brother's IBEW hall is literally poaching people flipping burgers at McDonalds

because they can't find the bodies to man their worksites.

[redstateblues]

82. My city, Nashville, is booming.

The economy here is very diverse and young people are moving here in droves. They say the city bird is the crane because of all the new construction in midtown.

[loyalsister]

30. Those numbers will be truly meaningful when poverty rates go down

As it stands, in my area we have 3% unemployment and 24% poverty. It is hard to argue that "all those jobs that are out there" mean anything when people are employed and still having trouble feeding their families.

[brentspeak]

36. Three cheers for McJobs, benefit-less temp positions, and part-time gigs

Oh, and another cheer for the existence of the dishonest U-3, the greatest statistical scam job of all time.

[JCMach1]

81. Which if you lose with a 12 month period or so in most states does not get you any unemployment

benefits...

Yet another reason why claims are down.

[rhett o rick]

86. Well if we tighten up the marijuana laws and lengthen the sentences we can kill two

birds with one stone. Support the growing Prisons For Profits industry that is supporting some candidates, and it will cut the number of unemployed. Those in prison aren't considered in the unemployment statistics.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

89. Thanks Obama!!!!

[Sunlei]

93. I think there are very few jobs left that actually provide unemployment benefits.