Job employment numbers continue to obscure the nature of the change in progress for the future industrial wage labor market. Even as the U-3 numbers peaks, so does the decline in the quality of the abilities that engage human in much of wage-labor jobs. The BLS reports the occupations with their respective growth rates. Fast food remains the top growth category. And there is a shortage of labor for fast food. Likely 1 million young workers now unemployed could find work in the industry. The jobs are spurned. Stocking and delivery Clerk jobs are available at Amazon...should this work make the heart throb for the young educated in a 21st century high tech modern society?
The merit in formation of a new era socio-economic order is not found in U-3! The future economy does not need more 'jobs'. And upping the $ wage while keeping individuals in work that robots could perform is exploitation at any price.
In a transforming economy many FUTURE wage workers will be pleased with their new life spared from 'job description' labor.
There is so much fresh work for humans. Work that would benefit civil society. Work that would tax human ability. Why subordinate ourselves to technology? Robots/AI will only become proficient. Beyond 2030 there is no telling what these operatives will accomplish.
Let us get on with doing the interesting work that was meant for human abilities...and that was not working in banks or fast food enterprises.
2
Wages are not "keeping up" because there is still very high latent demand for jobs. This morning’s employment report: Why does the American Job Shortage Number or AJSN, now 15.8 million, tell us it is better than our 164,000 net new jobs would indicate? See http://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2018/05/april-another-good-jobs-data-mon....
"The Jobless Rate Is Finally Below 4 Percent. Our Economic Goals Still Don’t Reflect That." That's because these so-called experts are measuring the wrong thing. The real question is not "how many people are unemployed" but "how many people are underemployed", working at jobs below their skill level.
Personally I think unemploying a few economists would do the country a lot of good.
2
The existence of jobs does not relate to the ability to earn a decent wage. The definitions are entirely inadequate to today’s economy and standards. There are employed people earning far less than their “value,” however calculated. The basis to consider one “employed” should be “a person earning more than 25% above the federal poverty level,” This doesn’t help the undervalued, but it would take the blush off the rose, nonetheless.
1
If this were the Obama's administration the NYT would be praising these numbers.
2
And Fox news would be dismissing them.
1
Irwin writes "And so the focus of policy seems as if it should be less on creating more jobs and more on trying to make the jobs that exist as good as possible, on all dimensions."
Recalling Econ 101, a focus on creating jobs will result in an increased demand for workers. This will result in both an increase in the number of workers AND an increase in the price of labor. The mix will depend on the elasticity of supply, i.e. as we get closer to that mythical "full employment," wages will rise faster.
Therefore, in order to "make the jobs that exist as good as possible," the policy answer is to encourage more job creation.
1
You missed the most important information in Econ101: The model you described is, in fact, a model. A theory. A supposition. IOW, it is a fantasy, a fiction.
The rise of wages as unemployment drops is a model of an idea of how things might work, not a description of any real dynamic. And even so, themodel is far, far more complex than your oversimplification would imply.
You may wish to take econ 201 before presuming to make such bold statements about policy. For example, consider that this model you describe assumes that experienced workers are worth more to employers. Then go ask Wal-Mart's HR managers if they would consider it worth a dollar raise to keep a worker, or if they'd consider it more valuable to fire everyone and hire newbies whenever their labor force got uppity and wanted raises.
Unskilled and unorganized labor, such as the people stocking retail shelves, have no bargaining power. Without any leverage, and in a context where automation is replacing skilled labor, the old econ101 model is pure nonsense. Much like the great wage hikes that will never result from the tax cuts.
The only sure way to see a rise in wages is, of course, to mandate higher wages through legislation that rewards - or withholds punishment from - those who raise wages. Those tax breaks should have been contingent on payroll increases.
3
As others have commented, this 4% number needs to be qualified. It is artificially made to look rosy by ignoring long time job seekers - I have friends highly qualified in their 40's looking for over a year. Although you hint at the issue by talking about historical labor participation, you could address the ways in which the current number is a fantasy (literally "fantastic") - and other more accurate measures. Also, how does this compare to how other countries report unemployment? Maybe Krugman will take on this subject, but until it's discussed I reject any conclusions, policy recommendations and attempts to sway my opinion.
4
If they are 'looking', they are counted. The BLS says that if you took the slightest action to find a job in the past month, such as reading through the job sites or sending out a resume, you are part of the work force and count as unemployed.
1
If you took the slightest action THAT THE BLS REGISTERS.
They have no idea if people are sending resumes or scanning private want ads. Only the people who filed unemployment claims are counted with any certainty.
I am a Registered Nurse. By all accounts a profession which is in very high demand and too many job openings go unfilled. However, I am also making far less than I made 30+ years ago as a legal secretary and the annual increases are calculated as less than $1.00/hour.
4
The existence of jobs does not relate to the ability to earn a decent wage. The definitions are entirely inadequate to today’s economy and standards. There are employed people, like Daniel, earning far less than their “value,” however calculated. The basis to consider one “employed” should be “a person earning more than 25% above the federal poverty level,” This doesn’t help Daniel, but it would take the blush off the rose, nonetheless.
1
Over time, low unemployment will improve job quality and compensation. When companies can't find the labor they need, they have to take measures to make the job more attractive. And that means making the job better in whatever means are available.
I read a lot of posts all around the Internet. I can always tell how old someone by what they say.
It is NOT the 1960s or 1970s (or even the 1980s). The world has changed dramatically since you were younger (especially since 2000). The environment in which most people younger than you find themselves is worse than the one you had not only numerically but also subjectively.
Being retired puts you out of touch of the day-to-day function of today's workforce. Reading about it not the same as LIVING it. It is time you spent some effort LISTENING.
And the politicians and academics need to get out more and do some old-fashioned gumshoe work instead of taking online surveys and crunching them with Big Data algorithms.
7
There has been an explosion in hiring in low wage sectors. Too many Americans are earning a few dollars an hour in low-yield jobs. Unemployment may be down but underemployment is riding high.
What percentage of Americans are earning a wage that is twice the poverty level? Are they getting meaningful benefits? That is a far more meaningful statistic than the unemployment rate.
This "roaring economy" that Trump boast about is yielding far too little for far too many Americans. This is a long-term problem plauging the American economy that no one talks about.
12
Unfortunately, many employers are unwilling to hire long term unemployed, especially those of us over 50. As an experienced manager who has hired many people over the years, I really don't understand this, although there are undoubtedly younger managers who are anxious about having people who are older than them as direct reports. Shortsighted, in my view. Some of my best people were older workers, and I valued their experience.
11
Obama administration set the stage to create, why thank him? Because, 'it could be worse'?
He failed the progressive mandate he was elected upon and now we are going to ignore that so we can applaud his efforts so that we can negate Trump? What silly myopia in the name of partisanship. It's the economic model that is topical and rotten. Who was/is President is a sophomoric distraction.
It's unfortunate that this is heralded as some sort of economic boon. The Walmart being built in Warrenton, Oregon is hiring a bunch of people!...oh wait, they're paying $11.00 an hour and I guess they will not be handing out 'how to get local, state, federal help/assistance because we're not paying you enough' brochures - they've determined that's bad PR...
But, Walmart is emblematic of a much larger problem in this nation - it's not J O B S that are the problem/solution. It's a vast and deepening inequality that renders these jobs functional equivalents of indentured servitude. The economic numbers all support reaching this conclusion.
We are on a terminal course if inequality is not addressed and these numbers do nothing to dispel the threat. These numbers are like the stock market numbers – they’re insignificant to the plight or riches of the average American. The descent by the proletariat continues unabated and that’s nothing to applaud or remain in denial about. Nothing.
6
The rich get richer. Greed is good. The government cares only about it's patron oligarchs and their corporate avarice.
4
The stock market has not really changed. Look at General Electric ford Jc penny. Are these people taken off of welfare and required to work! One kid and wife works!. Taxes give more money ? More elderly and we don't count them! More scholarships and we ignore them.
1
Americans have been manipulated to hate each other. Textbook divide and conquer by the robber barons in control of the Republican Party.
Their goal is to undo 20th century social progress.
If you’re not part of the smart and educated class that they still need to populate corporations, you’re out of luck. The US has already become a harsh, not so civilised country.
7
Had we done the right thing for this place in the business cycle we would NEVER have passed the tax bill, a straight giveaway to corporations whose primary interest is to reduce labor costs, to cut jobs and wages by investment in IT and automation, and to the "investor" class who are busily extracting capital from the Main St. economy. Now is the time to tax and invest, (during the Great Recession we should have borrowed and invested) invest in infrastructure to catch up with our competitors, in human capital/education to shift the wage scale upwards, and perhaps to pay down some of the debt to give us leeway for the next recession. Now we have violated the Obama creed, (don't do stupid stuff) right back to where we were in terms of leadership.
7
4% pshaw! So long as you count those unemployed in the last six months only. The real jobless rate is closer to 20%-remember all the fake numbers being used? The very numbers Trump complained were a lie-until he took over. Now he loves fake numbers...
2
82% of the wealth created last year went to the top 1%.
Most jobs are part time with low pay and no benefits, the businesses have restructured to provide multiple jobs and lower compensation...plenty of room for more such...my own wife has three jobs, no benefits, not even one. Full employment? Not if we have to go to a doctor, not if we eat more than just processed food covered all through with pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones, and tainted frack well waste water (each gallon of oil contaminated 1 MILLION gallons of fresh water, and each gallon of oil produces 9 gallons of contaminated well waste-water)... and at 25 hours a week, she has room for two or three MORE jobs. The math and definitions of employment and jobless rate tells me we can create an unemployment rate of NEGATIVE 2 to 4 PERCENT before compensation begins to change...because of the income and wealth disparities that have now become structural. What a wonderful useful measure we have in the unemployment rate!
it's COMPENSATION that is important, not some archaic partial measure that business has learned to evade for some years now...
2
Yes, the stock market went up last year. Yes, most of the stock is owned by wealthy people.
However, if all the stockholders tried to sell their stock portfolios, they would discover that what they have is only the illusion of wealth.
1
Liberals don't want to think about labor in this way--but it really is just another commodity purchased by business--same as fuel, steel, copper, copier paper and paperclips. Theoretically, the more labor is available, the lower businesses can offer to attract it. As the economy heats up, and more people are working, labor becomes scarce as the unemployment rate drops--and the price for labor (wages) should go up. In the past--it always worked this way.
But there are 2 forces that conspire to counteract this model. The first is simply this--the published unemployment rate is bunk. It is essentially meaningless. With so many social programs available to those who wish not to work, many choose not to work. As they drop out of the running, they are no longer counted as unemployed. The real measure of unemployment is the labor participation rate--which has dropped in the last 5 decades. As the labor market improves, these folks can re-enter the workforce, thereby increasing supply of labor, keeping a lid on demand--thereby suppressing wages.
The other issue is illegal immigration. Fifty years ago, we didn't have 10 million illegal aliens in the workforce. This supply of labor is simply not counted in the numbers--technically they do not exist--even though they are a major supplier of labor. And contrary to Liberal fairy tales, they DO lots of work that our citizens will do--driving trucks, serving in restaurants, landscaping, roofing, equipment operators, etc.
2
Conservatives don't want to think of labor this way - but labor is done by laborers, and unlike fuel, steel, and paperclips, laborers are human beings, and, even discounting the idea of human dignity, human beings require constant maintenance in the form of food, clothing, shelter, heat, medical care, etc.
Labor is not a "durable good" like the other commodities you list. Even in your dehumanizing model, your basic modeling of labor is not even realistic enough to be wrong. It is just nonsense.
And BTW, capital is, in fact, just another commodity.
If everyone earned enough that they had a bit extra to invest, they would do so, and then the cost of capital would decline. A limited supply of capital creates an increase in the cost of capital.
Conservatives never consider the humanity of the laborer, or the fact that a substantial increase in wages will not deplete the supply of available investment capital, it will just disburse the supply so that the capital market more closely resembles the labor market.
In fact, a disburse supply of capital, where no one person has an excess and all wish to invest what little they have, would result in far more capital investment, far more job creation, and far greater economic growth...not to mention a more widespread prosperity, or the decrease in taxes as the need for public assistance diminishes.
The reported unemployment number is fake news. It's lipstick on the pig that is the true economy.
That economy-- with its increasing inequality, wage stagnation, and non-participating "surplus" workers-- reflects the disaster that is Shareholder Value Capitalism. Ever since it became our de facto State Religion in the 1980s, it has plundered workers, the environment, and everything else for the short-term gain of wealthy investors and CEOs.
Under Shareholder Value Capitalism, labor is merely an expense to be reduced; as every dollar paid to workers is stolen from shareholders' pockets. Layoffs are applauded on Wall Street, and age discrimination is now an honorable tool for maximizing shareholder value. Mergers and rent-seeking financial transactions are exalted above all else, as they produce far more immediate "value" for investors than producing goods or services.
The self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe who reap all the benefits should be able to understand that a system based on plunder, aggressively destroying the people who buy goods and services, is unsustainable. But they're so focused on maximizing short-term gain that they're blind to the devastation. The unemployment number serves that blindness by sweeping much of the devastation out of sight.
The real solution is different form of capitalism that distributes wealth more equitably than the current zero-sum game, in which enriching investors requires impoverishing everyone else.
8
Many commenters have mentioned the laughable nature of the “25 to 54 years of age” window used to generate this official unemployment rate. I’m 59 and was very fortunate to be able to retire a year ago—I fully understand and am very sympathetic to the majority who aren’t so lucky—so I’m officially “out of the work force.”
Mr. Irwin, please tell us what the unemployment rate just for those between 55-64 is, and how that impacts this analysis. What an crazy approach this official statistic is since Medicare and SS don’t even start until 65 and 62 (minimum SS age with reduced benefits).
7
It would be interesting to see the U-6 for 55 to 64 year olds over the last 20 years in a graph.
2
The Trump tax "reform" gave $5 trillion in tax cuts to the owners of capital. Capital is free to cross borders, and global corporations and the billionaires that own the majority of their stock have a habit of investing in other countries. The tax cut will take money out of the U.S. economy.
However, workers in high-tax-states (a majority of U.S. workers) are paying for much of that tax cut with $4 trillion in new taxes. Next year, when they see their lower after tax income, they will be forced to decrease their spending. This will lower demand, shrinking the economy, creating a recession.
If this doesn't happen, I will admit my mistake.
My question is that, when the economy does contract next year, will the party of personal responsibility take personal responsibility for the disaster they created with the tax cuts they demanded.
My guess is no, since they have not taken responsibility for the war in Iraq based on lies, ISIS, which that war created, the deficits created by the Bush Tax Cuts and that war, or the Great Recession which happened after 11 years of Republican control of Congress and 8 years of Republican control of the presidency.
Supply Side Economics is a big fat lie, that only exists to justify tax cuts for the rich at any cost.
Investment is driven by demand, and demand is driven by wages, which are flat for 35 years.
5
Who doesn’t get counted is important but also the greed of American corporations and citizens. We prop up the pervasive poverty that impacts so many with idealized notions of meritocracy.
Go figure: Baby boomers retiring in droves; a healthcare system of subsidies that make is so you cannot afford to work because you could never earn enough to afford insurance premiums ; fast food companies with No-Hire agreements among them for low level/earning jobs. If economists would pay more attention to what is going on with the Walmart customer than the Gucci guy, then they might have a better idea of what's going on in the economy. Honna
2
Unlimited money in politics has tilted bargaining power completely in favour of corporations at the expense of employees and consumers: weak regulators (oligopolies and decline of service), weak or nonexistent unions, expensive healthcare, stagnating real wages etc.
Banning corporate money out of politics should be the Democrats’ number 1 goal or they will keep losing. This means cleaning ship from the top down and getting rid of Schumer, Pelosi et al.
1
QUALITY OVER QUANTITY
As a business attorney, I deal at the micro level with unemployment, underemployment, and everyday people's struggle, including employers, to just make ends meet in this market,
Although the numbers here are encouraging, the rates of rent, transportation, food, and other basic necessities are outpacing what people bring home. Many of these jobs are filled by people with a job already. Many of these jobs are low wage. Many of these jobs are likely the first to go if trouble comes. Employed people are stretched very thin, but are willing to do what it takes to care for their families. Having two bad jobs isn't sustainable compared to one really good job. Something will give.
The slow growth in wages reflects the fear some employers have that if they pay too much now, a turn in business means layoffs or pay cuts; both of which would lead to high turnover and higher employee dissatisfaction. Plus, believe me when I say employees do not forget or forgive pay cuts.
Until people can count on one good job, it'll be hard to lift out of this recession permanently. As the old saying goes, quality over quantity.
4
I am an older worker. I can not find a job. I work multiple part time jobs and am plowing through my retirement savings. I am very qualified, very willing to tak a job at Millinial pay scale, and am a hard worker. Yet after hundreds of applications I can not find a job. People like me are not counted in the unemployment rate. This is a false narrative.
9
The Official Unemployment rate may be low, but what of the Labor Participation Rate?
How many of the employed are earning a wage that without supplement (SNAP/WIC/Section 8/Medicaid) allows them to feed, house and get medical care without government subsidy?
How many can afford to take a vacation, can save for retirement, have savings for an unexpected emergency? It has been widely reported that about half of all households cannot afford a $500 out of pocket unexpected expense.
How many of those employed are underemployed? Working multiple part time jobs is not the same as a full time job that pays a living wage.
Pardon me while I project a skeptical response, but the numbers and what one can see in the world around us does not match up. It is the same for the official inflation rate which is supposedly low when every bill we have is going up constantly. Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.
10
One fact worth mentioning is that unemployment rates in “Trump country” were already low. The problem was trading good union jobs for Walmart. Not much progress going on with that.
Another fact I saw recently in a criticism of Sanders’ full employment proposal: 39% of American workers earn less than $15 an hour.
4
You can go back and tell us what was happening in 1953, but that was an old world war time economy and anyway, there was no money. No one had any money. It wasn't until 1957 that the government began to create some dollars so kids could go to college and so public schools could prepare them for such. We were still in a significantly agrarian economy into the mid-1960s, in spite of the phenomenal success of mining and manufacturing, especially heavy industries.
1967 was really the end of the solid dollar. I was in college in 1967 and I was aqble to pay rent and eat on $60/month earnings. Might be able to do that on $600 today, maybe not.
People are still working for less than $10.00/hour and many are working 20 hours /wk. I suspect these under-employed are not counted as "able and available" for work. The only thing these managers of the workforce are interested is in paying the capitalist stockholders their vig and getting as much work for as little pay from the largely unrepresented workers. It was only by organizing into unions that workers were able to control their jobs for at least a while. The current dictator in the Oval Office doesn't even believe in the minimum wage.
This article uses words like "officials may want to focus…". To address these types in such meek ways just makes them stronger. Put them out of work. Plus don't buy products that cost too much. The workers aren't getting the money we spend.
9
A quote from this article: "...it isn't yet clear that there is some overwhelming trends toward workers fully sharing in the benefits of an improving economy."
How can workers making minimum wage or a tad above "fully" share "in the benefits of an improving economy"?
The tax cuts for the wealthiest in this country will have the effect of further weakening the middle class who will continue to subsidize the wealthiest who are not paying their fair share. And these subsidies still will not be enough to fund quality education for all, as well as infrastructure and protections for our environment. Once again we see that "trickle down economics" do not work for the 99%. We need to get back to a progressive income tax if this nation is to be "truly great" for everyone.
7
Corporate executives know that in order to grow their stock price (and their own compensation), they must maintain strong net margins by keeping costs low. Raw materials and certain other expenses are mostly fixed. So when a labor component gets too high, it’s time to outsource it to a lower cost market, or automate and cut the cost all together.
8
Perhaps our main economic problem is not one of economics at all, but one of economics education. A reader, max, said in a reply to one of my comments:
"So much of our economic issues could be solved if people understood that the US cannot run out of money, and how hard it is to cause hyper-inflation from government spending alone."
Let me suggest a way of thinking about gov money that I hope will promote this understanding.
The first idea is that gov operations, militarily, infrastructure, research, etc. are NOT paid for or limited by taxes or borrowing.
The gov doesn't need your money. It can (thru the FED) create as much as it needs out of thin air. Just think about where YOUR money came from in the first place. Unless you have a printing press in your basement, it came from the federal gov. (This isn't quite right. Banks can create a limited amount, but that's too complicated to go into.)
But there's a catch. If the gov needs to create too much money to do the things we want it to do, we may not be able to make enough stuff to soak that money up & will have too much money chasing not enough stuff, i.e. excessive inflation.
But that's easy to solve & where taxes come in. Taxes allow the gov to take back the excess money & prevent inflation. The purpose of taxes is to adjust the amount of money in the private sector. That is what max is telling us.
Now if there are shortages, e.g. oil, we may produce so little, we can't tax enough. That's we we get hyperinflation.
1
Does trickle down work for wages? The data clearly shows it does not. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wa...
3
Middle America hasn’t had much of a pay rise in 30 years. Why would it be any different this year?
Employees still have little to no leverage over employers.
14
We have all been fed a bunch of malarkey for the last 50 years by the big boys that unions were bad and corrupt. The big boys— like the Koch Bros cabal— poured money, time, and effort into campaigns across the US that wished to undermine public employee unions, as well as the AFL-CIO, etc. It is no wonder that our middle class has gone the way of unions in this country— veering off the cliff to extinction. Who is left to collectively demand workers’ rights, safe conditions, pay equity, benefits like vacation, health care, and retirement savings, let alone overtime?
You are right, the corporations/ employers have no incentive to treat employees well, surely not a moral incentive. They enrich their shareholders and the give their employees the shaft. How long can this continue?
Revolutions have been fought over less— less income inequality in past centuries — than what the US currently experiences. The big boys would be wise to remember this and throw their workers a bone...
1
"But it wouldn’t be unprecedented; the jobless rate fell to 2.5 percent in 1953."
Yes. And what was government doing then? Still rebuilding after the war. Earl Warren was Chief Justice turning the court toward protecting citizens and Eisenhower supported the building of the interstate highway system.
When will our taxes go to fix our infrastructure and build out new 21st century ready infrastructure instead of being cut back to pay for stock buybacks, dividends, etc., for the owners of our corporations?
And as the comments here show, when will the wealth be shared with the working poor? Judging from the comments, every one working for a living qualifies for that group.
12
I’ve made in the low to mid 50’s for about 8 years now under two employers (private colleges).
8 years ago, I remember thinking: I’m finally making the median wage (50k!) in my mid-30’s (I work in the arts, so this is actually okay, for arts).
I’m thinking okay, fine, better times ahead. Now 8 years in and I’m at 55k, and my 401k is about the same, in total saved.
U.S. median wage is supposedly 60k, so it seems to me that wages aren’t keeping pace, despite that I’m now at a “Director” level. It’s no wonder my colleagues are in their 70’s - nobody could afford to retire with pensions now just volatile 401k’s. Thank goodness I’m not working for “exposure”, or on roofs, or ladders all day (anymore) my heart goes out to those folks who do, or have it worse. We all deserve better.
19
The lag is due to consolidation of work force. Competition between workers has been numbed by the fact that most professional work like medicine, engineering, etc. has been reduced to large firms and combined with manufacturing/labor moving oversees, there is little pressure to raise wages. Trickle down please!!!
6
Industry consolidation! That might be a clue. Fewer major employers gives the advantage to the employers. They can effectively do what they want.
10
In 2000, tax rates were such that the federal government was running surplus and the total national debt was actually being PAID OFF. So different today, taxes have been cut benefiting the wealthiest Americans and corporations.
6
More public sector jobs at better wages would drive wage growth overall.
11
The lower "rate" of unemployment becomes largely irrelevant if those "employed" are working for less wages, less fringe benefits, less union representation, higher taxes, no employer sponsored health care, greater deductibles, fewer vacation days, longer hours for no overtime,lincreased foreign competition from slave wage countries and less government regulation of corporate abuse of employees. So, congratulations are in order? Maybe not.
26
Cyclical changes in the jobless rate are positive, but the labor force takes time to change. By the time any policy reaction to this takes effect, a reasonable share of jobs may be on the verge of being automated away.
This may be one reason why more companies are not raising pay to fill their open jobs - they know that they can't undo the raises when the situation changes, and they likely expect it to change in a few years. They also know that offering higher pay rates to new hires means offering everyone at least that pay rate, which can make it a money loser even for a labor-constrained business.
2
Available jobs, well-paying jobs, go unfilled largely due to an unqualified workforce.
If people go from high school to college (and I’d be interested in that number), and get themselves educated in those industries that need people (Information Technology is the best example), they will enjoy rewarding and well-paying careers.
Staying with IT, I worked as a technical staffer for seven years from 2005 to 2012. We had employers begging us for good IT engineers, in languages that weren’t unreasonably difficult to master - Java, J2EE, JavaScript, Oracle. Far and away, the only candidates we could find were immigrants on work visas - primarily India, China, and Russia.
I got to know these people, and to a person they faced poverty and limited opportunity at home. So they not only got the education they needed, they went through the tedious process of getting an HB-1 work visa, which are limited by the government (pre-Trump!). To make it harder, employers insisted that no more than 20 to 30% of our contractors were here on a work visa, making it nearly impossible to find qualified US candidates.
But we have excellent technology schools. Children need to be taught to think at least a little about the future so they pursue a rewarding career path.
It was sad and frustrating and I eventually quit the field. I could not magically manufacture a Java engineer with 3 to 5 years of experience AND an American citizen overnight.
And this will get worse with Trump’s policies.
13
I had a co-worker from Russia whose husband studied IT here in NYC. When he finished she said he was "buying experience." I said "how do you buy experience?" She didn't answer. Obviously, he paid someone to lie for him. I suggest you take such references with a grain of salt.
I would like to respectfully disagree with the published jobless rate. It does not account for people who have given up looking for a job. I am over 55 and 90% of my peers have been laid off and have given up trying to find work. They are living off savings, don't collect unemployment and are not factored into the jobless %. These folks know they do not have enough savings to last the rest of their lives. They try to find consulting work, under the table work or are simply putting off going on gov. funds until they are >65 y/o.
I caution people to take this jobless rate with a grain of salt because it is not a good indicator of how the country is doing wrt employment. Salaries are down. Benefits are down. White collar, highly educated and capable people have been forced out and can't get a job. I'm one of them and it is frustrating. In 10 years we will be completely dependent on the rest of society.
51
Thanks for pointing out something that's constantly overlooked.
Ageism plays a big role in keeping people over 50 out of salaried jobs--and consequently, out of affordable health care. I know many over 50 who make their money as freelancers and love what they do. They take excellent care of their health; they have to given our broken health care system.
As you point out, this group tends to get ignored in the employment numbers. They're also ignored in the health care conversation.
9
Although the standard unemployment rate is back down to where it was in ~2000 the U6 rate is still about 1% higher than it was back then. This means that there are still about 1.4 million people that are willing to be back in the market if the conditions were right. This may included jobs that pay closer to a living wage. Therefore we have a long way to go before we hit the limits of available workers and we can hope that the Feds continue to take a measured pace at increasing short term interest rates.
6
So, wouldn’t now be a great time to raise the national minimum wage - to simply the inflation adjusted amount of about $10.50/hr - and pay people a salary sufficient to pay for child care and maybe get them over the poverty limit? That would help “participation”.
33
Continually raising the minimum wage ultimately destroys small business - something central to a good economy. The US has a remarkable and unique system of tipping which allows small business to first survive, and then thrive. I wish we had it in Australia, where we have a ridiculously high minimum wage, but no manufacturing at all, and a sky-high bar for small business (thus most fail) because the businesses can't afford to hire anyone, or enough people. This socialist form of economics puts a limit on the small to medium enterprise economy - something vital for America. Don't blow it with ever higher minimum wages.
6
I agree with Greg. Mandated minimum wages and tariffs are nothing more than government price fixing, a complete end run around how businesses actually operate.
If you turn it around it’s easy to see the absurdity. Example - A business can’t survive with market-determined prices, so the government sets minimum price that are higher. I know, it’s ridiculous. So are minimum small-business-killing minimum wages.
1
"Continually raising the minimum wage..."...when was the last time it was raised?...2009?...doesn't sound "continually" to me....
I'm curious to know how many of those how aren't looking for work are simply tired of working at pointless jobs with mean-spirited managers in ugly surroundings. I suspect that many people are just not interested in participating in our vapid rat-race culture, and choose to forgo some tacky trappings of weath in return for significant stress reduction.
32
Maybe, others just scale back a bit, move from onerous places/jobs, and pay in cash whenever possible.
You’d think this would be the time for organized labor to claw back their losses over the last 50 years. Unfortunately most folks who would benefit from unions have been brainwashed into believing they’re a bad idea. Yet another amazing phenomenon of life in 2018.
61
They are a bad idea. In the end, they are ineffective, and think only of the money they collect in dues. Keep your dues in your pocket, and use it for your families, not ugly aggressive unions.
1
These numbers do not reflect those 55+ who are
unable even to get interviews, let alone jobs, to (illegal) age discrimination. These are the Americans who have given up looking for work or listed as “self-employed.” Where is that story?
87
The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes 6 "Alternative measures of labor underutilization". They are labeled U-1 through U-6. U-3 (the official unemployment rate) is used by politicians, economists and other and assorted fools and charlatans who contemplate the "economy". U-6, which the BLS reported as 7.8% for April, 2018, is the most robust measure because it includes more categories of people engaged in some manner in the labor force. Policy makers serious about addressing the labor market should address the issues implied in the U-6 rate rather than ignoring the more marginal members of the labor market. But, that would require more thought and effort, which explains why they like the relative comfort of U-3 in the first place....Mr. Irwin does, however, mention the serious point of focusing on the quality of jobs and not just the quantity. Gallup makes an effort to do just that, but Gallup's efforts don't gain much traction among politicians, economists and other assorted charlatans and fools. So, when the BJS announces its next "Alternative measures of labor underutilization" don't expect to hear the term U-6 mentioned by pundits and savants.
15
The GOPTaxScam is a stimulus that comes at a time when economists consider us at full employment. We are not going to get to 0% and any economist worth his salt will tell you that only increases inflationary pressure. We should be RAISING REVENUES aiming for a surplus ahead of the next, and eventual, recession. We should be preparing for the next bubble to burst instead of pricing people out of the economy through rising prices, which will only make the next one even worse.
14
Jobless numbers are meaningless as these like every other number coming out of the fed are so easily manipulated. First of all, as I have said at every opportunity, why is there no longer a mention of the numbers of jobs needed just to keep up with population growth, thirty years ago that was 200,000 a month, this has been entirely ignored; what no ones having children anymore, or emigration has ceased, I seriously doubt that: try getting on the 30 Stockton ( a bus in San Francisco that goes through Chinatown): even a decade ago, standing room only. The other more important calculations given only a passing nod, the jobs that go unfulfilled are in are where the wages don’t match the cost of living, San Francisco again being a good example. $15.00 an hour, ten hours a day = $900.00 a week times four = $3600 per month. That’s before taxes and S.S. deductions and healthcare if you’ve got it, not to mention transportation( that 30 Stockton isn’t cheap), food and the one thing everyone can’t live without their cell phone. Back of the envelope calculation, after expenses that’s assuming no dating, laundry auto insurance etc. you don’t have enough left to rent a decent studio apartment working ten hours a day six days on supposedly “ good” wages, this while our local hero’s like Zuckerberg and the Sand Hill Road crowd are taking home millions or billions. The really big lie has been the rate of real inflation the last forty years, the 1% are the only ones who kept up with it.
24
The economy improved dramatically during Bill Clinton's presidency, partly due to luck in the form of unexpectedly good results from the tech sector. Things were fine, then W's policies produced the Great Recession, which was totally unnecessary. Obama pulled us back from the edge of the cliff, and now we are experiencing the inertia of his 8 years of solid economic stewardship. I encounter many young people, though, who came of age during the Great Recession and who did not live through the slow motion train wreck that was the W presidency. They grew up with Obama, and actually believe that hard times during the Great Recession were the Democrats' fault simply because they held power. Many, too, do not seem to realize that the tax law is setting us up for another fall. They think today's economy is somehow the product of Trump's policies and like the idea of probably having more cash in their pockets next year. I see, therefore, why the country is where it is right now - economic and historical illiteracy and ignorance. So however reasonable the proposal, I do not expect good policy making to occur right now. People did not opt for good policy making in November 2016. This is the post-fact, post-truth era in which expertise is dead and corruption is mainstream. The party in power does not care about job quality. The harder it is for average people, the easier they are to control and manipulate.
21
I do tax preparation for a living. From my perspective there is an obvious solution: Quit taxing jobs. The truth is, we tax a good job like it is a pack of cigarettes. Take a $60K job. Virtually every dollar of that salary is subject to about 17 percent of payroll taxes right off the bat. Then Federal and state income tax has to be paid on that income. We also have a health care system where regulations put the burden of health insurance on the employer. On top of all that there is still the inherent cost of training employees and paying for the space to do their work.
Assuming we actually care about creating jobs then I think moving back to taxing wealth and consumption would do wonders for creating jobs. We should have the following
-$50K-100K standard deduction
-Single payer health care
-Replace FICA taxes with some form of consumption tax.
19
Perhaps a noble goal would be to get away from having so many jobs in the government funded “defense industry”.
20
I am a single mother, profesional, mid level, suburban employee with a decent salary. So i should be happy about this report. Wrong.
My taxes went up slightly, my employer has outsourced our jobs to India, and will continue to do so in the next year except for sales and development. Home prices are so high that if i were to but my condo today, i couldn’t afford it with twice the salary from 9 years ago. I have been looking for a new job for about a year and what is out there, it is depressing. Sales, junior positions, and developers. Outside those areas, it is basically impossible if you are in the middle of your career, unemployment rates are useless.
I looked at an out of the box solution, farming. I grew up in a cattle ranch, so i have considered a change. It is even more depressing. An entry level, career change would make me lose 80% of my salary. Since i am my only provider, that will not go well with my pillow. So, please forgive me if i cannot see the grace of the reports. While i am employed, i have to work over 60/70 hours per week to proof my job needs to stay in the US.
And for some reason, i thought the president said those reports were fake...
79
Hopeful news, but it sure doesn’t feel like this to a job seeker. I have been looking for months. My field is IT, especially security, risk, and audit. Recruiters and hiring managers tell me my resume is great. I have recent certifications. I’m willing to take a pay cut for the right job, and potentially move, though you’d think I could find a job in metro NY.
Of course, I’m a woman over 55, and although I’m energetic and very active, it seems to me these obstacles are too high for employers.
92
You are not getting job offers due to your AGE. Period. Age discrimination, though technically illegal, is the MOST prevalent form of discrimination today and receives little or no attention. Your qualifications, abilities, talents, experience are meaningless if you are over the age of 50. I suggest you apply for a job as a cashier at Target ....or better, find out the age of the candidates who were hired for the jobs you are applying for ....and if they are younger (and they will be) sue the companies for discrimination. You would have about equal chance of being hired as winning a lawsuit !
This was started under the Obama Administration. Trump has had little to do with this.
In fact Trump is hurting farmers, steelworkers and has led coal workers into false hope.
14
"But it wouldn’t be unprecedented; the jobless rate fell to 2.5 percent in 1953."
I wonder what is effect on this factoid that in the 1950s most married women were stay-at-home moms?
27
Apparently, the majority of GOP voters in Arizona are more concerned with 'building a wall' than paying their children's teachers a living wage.
Just one more indication that we're headed for a long, slow economic decline, as automation replaces minimum wage workers and too many of the next generation of Americans won't have the training to do the jobs of the 21st century.
The private sector is focused on the next quarterly report. Who is responsible for investing in America for the next decade or more?
27
“Won’t have the training”? Perhaps, instead, we have a paradigm where companies are increasingly only willing to pay for skills needed immediately. Then employees are made redundant because of cost accounting rules favoring capital expenditures over labor costs. Today, automation and other technologies are overfunded at the expense of worker training and re-training to incorporate existing mastery into the latest corporate job title. But this isn’t “new.” It is just exponentially accelerated in the age of information technology.
12
It does seem to be good news, but it also seems to raise some questions, questions that have be answered in the full job report. I'm going to go look for that. In the meantime--what percent of those who left the work force retired or died, how do the numbers correlate to geographic, age, race, and to me, mostly important, job category?
If the shortfall in applicants is in say, in tech, and the unemployed are in construction, it's not so much good news.
Rather than report only topline numbers, it might be more useful if the media could perhaps do a series of in depth articles on the pieces and bits that get rolled into that topline number.
Here in the front range of Colorado is below 3% and has been for months; in fact, if you're standing on a street corner for more than a minute or two, you're liable to get recruited.
These stagnant pockets of long term unemployment are like infected teeth and just that them, sooner or later they're going to cause our country a whole lot of hurt.
Thanks to the Times for printing the report.
10
I am a farmer. I don't get counted in these statistics as a business owner. I work over 80 hours a week, some weeks as much as 100 hours. I have trouble finding workers and their wages have increased over 50% in the last 10 years, yet they deserve more. I lost hundreds of thousands of dollars last year, yet prices don't go up as costs have been increasing rapidly. This is not atypical of farmers today. Food prices will have to increase or the economy will fall apart, imports will surge and the environment will be harmed.
Today I am not as optimistic as I try to be every day.... Teenagers need to work like I did. Retirement is not in the cards for me.
32
Thank you for doing what you do. The country would be far better off of more people worked like you.
1
Regarding the rise in non-labor-force participation, how does that break out by sex and family status? Presumably, some of the non-participators are parents - usually, but not always, mothers - who have chosen to leave the work force temporarily to bring up their children. If they do so voluntarily, this is not a bad thing. It's a good thing in that (a) it means more people are able to make the life choice they want to make, and (b) it also means there are families out there able to live on one income - something that was a given back when unemployment was at 3.9% in 1970.
If the number of voluntarily stay-at-home parents has gone up, that is a healthy sign for the economy and for society as a whole.
5
Raising the minimum wage in a significant way. Can’t we do that after the tax cut windfall for corporate America and the rich? And increase salaries, overtime protection.
Why isn’t the teaching profession worth a $75K starting salary with a 5 yr. commitment ? Do we want great teachers or not???
51
The next step of your plan would be higher costs for business and higher prices for the consumer. As minimum wages go up, less people are hired. Way to start a recession and the death of productivity.
1
As minimum wages go up, so does demand for goods and services, thus increasing the demand for labor.
Your economic myopia is chronic. Try looking at the bigfer picture of money flow, instead of stopping your thought process at profit margins.
BTW, prices need not go up with higher wages. Profits could decrease. The increase in prices due to higher wages involves a choice, it is not causal.
But i do note that those who are fine decreasing wages are somehow aghast at the thought of decreased profits.
We need to member that participation rates very significantly between groups. In today's report, BLS stats show that for those 20 years old or or older, 72 percent for men and only 57 percent for women participated last month. Since those number includes retirees, the comparison is often made for those 25-54 years-old - the so-called "prime working age" population. In that category men have an 88 percent rate compared to a 74 percent rate for women. Quite a difference. There are also major geographical differences. So in addressing the issue, we need to be careful to target the tight groups in the right places.
5
Would be nice to see reporting on the distribution of un/under employment in the US, mobility of workers, geographic wage distribution, where the new jobs are located, etc. Many of the working age population not looking for a job may be in areas where jobs are not being created.
13
Why do articles like this so often report something like: 'Average hourly earnings for private-sector workers rose only 0.1 %, and they have been up 2.6 percent over the last year' - without reporting what those average hourly earnings actually are? I think the average is around $22/hour but how is that skewed by earnings of 1% crowd? What is the median? I think the median is $14-15/hour. Half the population earns the median or less. With wages this low in the absence of universal health care we have serious problems that this article glosses over. Do we have affordable housing problems or do we have earnings problems. I'd say we still have serious earnings problems.
86
They will often report non-management hourly wage which would exclude CEOs and other huge earners.
1
There also should report REAL wages (inflation adjusted), not nominal wages.
3
Median earnings are reported by the Census Bureau once a year. The most recent data, for 2016, was reported in September 2017. I think you can find the data you are looking for at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/histo...
For 2016, median earnings were:
P-2 Everyone 15 and over whether or not they had a job - Males $38,869, Females $24,892, weighted average $31,813
P-53 15 and over with earnings:
Males = $43,440, Females = $31,144, Weighted average = $37,505
P-36 15 and over full-time year round workers:
Males = $53,473, Females = $43,199, Weighted Average = $49,090
1
So the jobless rate is below 4%.Still doesn't change anything.
We've just added more working poor to the economy. the 2nd
Gilded age is becoming permanent,
73
Presumably, if the labor market were really so tight, there would be opportunities even for ex-offenders or people with opioid and other addiction problems, just as wages, which have been threatening to increase more, might really increase more, whereas the inflation that most people now feel is in the price of gasoline.
It’s good news, but there’s a way to go.
10
TWO WORDS: HIGHER WAGES. TIME TO BRING BACK FIGHTING UNIONS!
66
And what percentage of Americans are working two jobs to make ends meet?
61
I find it interesting that the age range for these employment figures is 25 to 54, yet our official retirement age is 65 or older. So should people ages 55-65+ just stop trying to find work? So it would seem.
65
They use the younger age range because many people over 55 leave the labor force voluntarily through retirement or involuntarily due to disability. Others chose to reduce their hours or take lower-stress positions if they can afford to do so. Including only the younger age group in the labor stats is an effort to limit the population being counted to those who, theoretically, want and need to be in work full-time.
There is no perfect age cut-off for this purpose, but 55 feels about right to me.
8
And yet we are constantly told, wait until 70 to retire! Like older workers always have a choice to keep their jobs, or tons of options if they are again involuntarily on the job market at 60.
9
I know many workers who were let go from corporate tech jobs in their 50s or early 60s. One company had tinkered with the pension plan so that each year a worker remained on staff meant a reduction in the benefit that would be received when retirement age finally rolled around. I am betting further tinkering will mean those workers will never see any of the pension benefit that was an incentive for them stay with companies for years.
2
Full employment should always be the fundamental economic/social policy of government.
7
Four percent, almost all economists agree, *is* full employment.
There will always be some people unemployed. People are always changing jobs and et cetera.
7
In the aftermath of the World War full employment was the de facto policy and achievement of most of the Western democracies. And though unemployment was very low in Eisenhower America, so was inflation. Taxes were relatively high but so was social investment and we are still living off the investments of the FDR to Ike years. In the 70s full employment was redefined as the non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment so that unemployment rates of seven-plus percent became acceptable but to great social cost.
1
I would prefer adequate distributon of national income to full employment.
1
What it means, by far, far anything else, is that the nation should be focused on paying off some of the national debt.
In bad times, a deficit is justifiable, but not now.
Most certainly, not now.
And the annual federal budget deficit numbers are horrendous, currently.
25
Corporate cash hoards aren't helping workers, they're not helping the economy, and they're not helping to pay down the debt. If corporations won't but their money to work to improve the economy then the government should step in and do it for them.
15
@Stan - You are way behind - most corporations face problems with mounting debt and not enough cash flow to pay the interest. They leveraged themselves in a low-interest environment, and now they're in trouble.
@Jonathan: That may be true for some but those are the ones who don't have the cash hoards. In 9/2016 CNBC reported that U. S. corporations were hoarding $2.5 trillion overseas, and I don't know how much within the U. S. That's not helping the economy or the average citizen. Something constructive should be done with that money.
Robber Baronomics seems to be working okay.
1%-conomics seems to be working okay.
Now how about giving the 99% who helped it happen a damn raise, some affordable healthcare and some paved roads to drive on ?
Too much to ask ?
I understand; the Reverse Robin Hoods’ fresh coat of gold toenail polish is more urgent.
Understood.
88
How many serfs (nowadays called wage earners) work on behalf of the 1%. According to this article 79.2 % of the prime working age serfs are employed by the 1%. USA serfs are better off than many other places but then treating them better seems to further improve the coffers of the 1%.
5
Wait - that's confusing.
Are the 1% the idle rich who inherited their wealth and now provide nothing of value or are they the ones employing everyone?
Can't decide why we are supposed to hate them....
An analysis published in the NY Times showed that the largest groups in the top 1% were doctors, 13%, followed by lawyers, 10%. Higher-level executives, small business owners, and finance professionals were also heavily represented.
Solid points - the unemployment rate is great so now let's put some focus on the quality of the jobs.
Whether that is the difficult task of re-invigorating middle-class blue collar manufacturing or addressing whether *every* student should take on student debt for a degree that doesn't advance their job prospects i.e. very well paying trade jobs are not being filled.
13
Does the United States of America have a policy to recognize those Americans who do the jobs essential to the economy but not identified in the definition of what is paid work?
12
I agree the minimum wage should be raised (no one should live in poverty), but people making average income (40-50k) or above should not be complaining.
For regular joes, quality of life is all the matters (i.e. having access to a smart phones, Netflix, cheap high caloric food), because they are not investing their money.
The wealthy, on the other hand, bank roll large scale projects that, in the long run, improve the quality of life for regular joes by giving them more bang for their hard earned buck. Sure, not every rich person will do this, but it only takes a few to make a big difference.
1
So where are these "large-scale projects that improve the quality of life for regular Joe's" which are being bankrolled by the wealthy?
I'm not seeing even "a few" who are bothering their busy minds and concerns to do this.
Where are they again??
37
While you may be gambling man, I think most people would not like to put their future into the hands of some stranger.
Be careful that you don't stay complacent. Many salaries have not varied from 40-50k in the past two decades. If you keep putting such blind faith in the hands of others, you'll find yourself making 40k in fifteen years when the cost of living has tripled.
But, if you'd prefer to make less money, that's your own choice.
23
Your argument would be a lot stronger if it were possible to have "quality of life" - whatever that means - on 40-50K per year in most of the country. It's pretty ironic to make a comment like that in the New York Times, given that it is impossible to live at anything above a subsistence level anywhere in greater New York on that salary unless one has outside help (family and the like) or two incomes in the household.
The reason for this is, of course, the astronomical cost of housing, a problem that prevails not just in New York but in most major metropolitan areas. Improve the availability of moderate-income housing, and perhaps you will see some of these regular Joes start "investing their money".
9
I'm much more interested in the underemployment numbers than the unemployment numbers.
How many people who actually have a job have one that allows them to work the number of hours they want, on a schedule they want? How many are in involuntary part-time employment? How many in jobs with time off or health benefits? How many self-employed, contract, or "gig" workers?
The number that everyone watches--percentage unemployment--loses most of its meaning without good numbers in answer to these questions.
121
The participation rate in the U.S. (especially in the core ages from 18 through 64) have not budged since the bottom of the Great Recession. It is stuck in range about 3% BELOW where we were in 2007.
Given how well the economy is doing, this should NOT be the case. So you have to wonder what is REALLY going on. Is the unemployment survey just useless because it simply does not capture the true conditions in the work force? If so, is it not time to throw it away and create a new measure that better reflects the economic reality?
How about creating a month-to-month calculation of total wages in the country and publishing that? You cannot tell me with all the computing power we have in this country that it cannot be done.
What good is it if unemployment is low but the quality of jobs/pay (including benefits) is always declining?
Most of your questions can be answered if you go to https://www.bls.gov/data/
Click on Labor Force Statistics (3rd line under employment) and then select the data series you want to see, e.g.:
Persons At Work Part Time for Economic Reasons - LNS12032194
Not in Labor Force - LNS15000000
Marginally Attached to Labor Force - LNU05026642
Discouraged Workers - LNU05026645
Alternative measure of labor underutilization U-6 - LNS13327709
These are awful numbers. In a roaring boom, wages rise slower than inflation. No wonder the market is up. Everything goes to profits and in Marx's terms the owners of the means of production--the 20% of the population who own most of the stocks.
Small wonder that the NYT, the real Wall Street journal, is so horrified at Trump. He might actually do something to raise wages. But with the sharp rise in populism in Europe and everi in the province of Ontario, Trump is the mildest we can expect to get until the left wing parties becomes left wing and the average American suffers. What happens in a recession?
13
"Trump is the mildest we can expect to get until the left wing parties becomes left wing and the average American suffers." Explain reasoning here. I see average Americans suffering under the Robber Baron capitalism that has engulfed the GOP for the last 40 years. I'm curious as to your view
5
Yes, Trump, the man who just handed Apple, a company sitting on 260 billion dollars in stockpiled cash, a massive tax cut is going to raise wages? What universe are you living in?
The way to raise wages is breaking up the monopolies that dominate our life, strengthening labor unions, implementing a smart and aggressive trade policy and tightening labor regulations that allow employers to get away with wage theft, the platform of the Bernie wing of the democratic party. The only thing Trump has been talking about is trade and even that has been implemented with breathtaking incompetence.
Regarding the 20% or so of the population who are of prime working age but have left the job market. I'm curious how many of them left the job market to take care of family members, be they young children, the sick, or elderly. As a young, married person contemplating starting a family, the one thing my PhD wife and I come back to is the cost of childcare and a pro/con list that includes one of us leaving our job to care for young children. I know we're not alone. Starting a family in the United States should be an impediment to growing a career (or visa versa) is absurd. Not only is it bad social policy, it's absurdly short-sighted economic policy. As a country we need to grow early childhood care and education at the state and national level such that good, high quality day care and pre-K is available to all. Doing so would put more people to work and give our children the jump-start on their future they deserve.
98
Many an individual over the age of 54 is most assuredly capable of working and working hard. Most people at 54 have another 10 to 15 years of work - ideally - before them.
But the federal definitions used to figure employment still cap the "prime working age" at 54. Why?
In the 21st century, when most jobs use technology of some sort and not the sweat of the brow or the bending of the back, this is horribly short-sighted. In the 21st century, when people over 54 are largely NOT ill or incapacitated, this is crazy.
In the 21st century, at a time when so many over 54 who are NOT ready to retire can't find "comparable" to what they had jobs, much less ANY work and still have 10 to 15 years to work, it's just wrong.
A re-evaluation of this span for "prime working age" is essential and it should be done now, with an update on this with increase of the top cap to at least 60 or, even 65, put in place immediately.
57
Yes the intelligent thing for the country to do is to tax the owners of capital to invest in workers and their families.
Putting more money in the pockets of workers would increase demand, which would require businesses to invest to meet demand.
Tax cuts do not increase demand, because the owners of capital are just as likely to invest that cash in a foreign country as the USA.
We have stopped investing in ourselves and the economy is suffering because of it.
40
The statistic you're looking for is called "Not in the labor force, want a job now." People who are taking care of family members would say they don't want a job "right now." Here's the historical data:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NILFWJN
1