SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the probably-not-coming-back-either dept.
The World Socialist Web Site reports
The US employment report for October released by the Labor Department on Friday, four days before Election Day, provided a snapshot of an economy that continues to be mired in stagnation. The net nonfarm payroll increase was a tepid 161,000, with the bulk of the new jobs, as in previous months, made up of low-wage service and part-time positions.
Economists had predicted a payroll increase of 173,000. Even with a combined upward revision of 44,000 jobs for the months of August and September, the overall rate of job-creation has slowed markedly, averaging 181,000 a month through October as compared to 229,000 for all of 2015.
The number of long-term unemployed remained at 2 million, comprising 25.2 percent of those officially counted in the government tally. These are extraordinarily high numbers for the seventh year of a so-called "recovery".
The decline in the official unemployment rate to 4.9 percent in October from 5.0 percent in September was not the result of workers joining the labor force and finding jobs, but the departure of 425,000 more working-age Americans, bringing the number of such workers who are outside the labor force to a near-record high of 94.6 million.
The labor force participation rate actually declined, reaching 62.8 percent in October versus 62.9 percent the prior month.
Via a paywalled story on May 29, 2012 in U.S. News & World Report, Economics professor Antony Davies, PhD said (Google cache) that it takes 180,000 new jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. So, anything less is actually a loss of US jobs.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @01:33AM
Shusssh!!! You must not stray beyond whathisname's cherry picked facts.
Like his context-free labor force participation rate comparison.
In fact it is level from the two months prior to September and up 0.3% from one year prior. [tradingeconomics.com]
Furthermore you must ignore the fact that people are retiring at a faster rate than they were previously because baby boomers are aging out. [businessinsider.com] The labor force participation rate in october of 1966 was only 59.3%, a full 3.5% less than what it is today. The Baby Boomer Employment Bump is very obvious. [stlouisfed.org]
And that cherry-picked job growth break-even number — one random economist, behind a paywall from 4 years ago? come-on! — when it is currently more like 145,000 jobs per month [wsj.com] for a net increase of 28,000 jobs.
None of that matters. Do not look behind the curtain of stupidity! Vote Trump because America is in decline!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @01:45PM
So people are working but don't have the money to do anything. That's great....
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday November 07 2016, @04:11PM
Yeah Cherry picking. So in four years more people have become so discouraged from finding a job, they drop out of the unemployment numbers altogether and now it only takes 145,000k per month to break even.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday November 07 2016, @04:38PM
Except that that's not what the numbers say. Labor force participation among prime working-age adults (25-54) is actually slightly higher today than it was 4 years ago, and is up for 2016 as well among all age groups. That even with the baby boomers retiring, which can be misleading if you're just looking at the overall numbers. And job growth has been significantly faster than 145K per month for quite some time.
I'm not saying everything is great, not by any stretch, but the US is far better off together jobs-wise than we were 4 or 8 years ago. That's the simple fact of the matter.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @12:28AM
the US is far better off [...] jobs-wise than we were 4 or 8 years ago
...if you don't mention that most of the new jobs are poverty-wage no-benefits part-time jobs that replaced the good-paying manufacturing jobs with good benefits that the USA -used- to have before the trade agreements which disposed of tariffs.
Yeah, I'd rather be punched in the arm than kicked in the nuts, but, ideally, I'd rather not be assaulted by Neoliberals at all.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @07:02PM
Wow. You really do not understand how the job replacement rate works.
But I bet you think you totally understand it, don't you?
Duning-Kruger.