The jobs that are being created are terrible jobs at low pay, mostly in the service industry. Millennial are working 2-3 part time jobs just to service their student loans. What's lacking is good manufacturing jobs for people without hi-tech skills and unfortunately, those jobs are never coming back.
29
At 75 months, the current job expansion is the longest in US history.
If you take the range of estimates from the CBO and BLS for the average number of jobs required to keep up with population growth, it gets to roughly 85-90 k per month.
The economy is still producing more jobs than population growth requires.
The labor force participation rate peaked in about 1999 and is shaped by demographic forces such as retiring Baby Boomers. It should continue to decline into the 20's.
The US Census database can tell you as much about the expected labor force participation rate as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) can.
When you see the massive seasonal smoothing data applied to the raw data by the BLS, you can more clearly see how absurd it is to infer from a one month snap shot.
The article made this important point.
ADP also releases monthly payroll data for the businesses they provide and they calculated May 2016 job growth at 176,000.
http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/2016/May/NER/docs/ADP-NATIONAL-EMPLOY...
But there are those who know nothing of calculations, but know much of manipulations, that are already illustrating just how much they don't understand about the economy.
My case in point: Donald Trump's tweets about the job report.
He may not know much, but I will at least give him props for willing to broadcast his ignorance so readily and so consistently.
If you take the range of estimates from the CBO and BLS for the average number of jobs required to keep up with population growth, it gets to roughly 85-90 k per month.
The economy is still producing more jobs than population growth requires.
The labor force participation rate peaked in about 1999 and is shaped by demographic forces such as retiring Baby Boomers. It should continue to decline into the 20's.
The US Census database can tell you as much about the expected labor force participation rate as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) can.
When you see the massive seasonal smoothing data applied to the raw data by the BLS, you can more clearly see how absurd it is to infer from a one month snap shot.
The article made this important point.
ADP also releases monthly payroll data for the businesses they provide and they calculated May 2016 job growth at 176,000.
http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/2016/May/NER/docs/ADP-NATIONAL-EMPLOY...
But there are those who know nothing of calculations, but know much of manipulations, that are already illustrating just how much they don't understand about the economy.
My case in point: Donald Trump's tweets about the job report.
He may not know much, but I will at least give him props for willing to broadcast his ignorance so readily and so consistently.
41
“The last time the economy registered an unemployment rate this low was November 2007, on the eve of the Great Recession.” At parties, that may not be the best conversation starter.
11
The only older people removed from the labor force participation calculation are people in nursing homes. So a 90 year old women libing on her own is deemed to be looking for work.
5
At some point I would like someone to explain to me why economists and reporters are so focused on the "headline" U3 number, which somewhat narrowly defines the labor force.
As stated, the U3 number is now near what could be considered full employment - the level below which serious inflation could kick in and hiring might slow. Yet the broader U6 measure of unemployment remains pretty high by historic levels - suggesting there is still slack in the labor market.
It seems to me that with U3 bottoming out, the U6 number is really the one we should focus on.
Its also significant that the U6 number stayed the same, has it has for the last several months after falling steadily for years. Not being an economist, I'm not sure what this means, and I would like to hear economists comment on it.
As stated, the U3 number is now near what could be considered full employment - the level below which serious inflation could kick in and hiring might slow. Yet the broader U6 measure of unemployment remains pretty high by historic levels - suggesting there is still slack in the labor market.
It seems to me that with U3 bottoming out, the U6 number is really the one we should focus on.
Its also significant that the U6 number stayed the same, has it has for the last several months after falling steadily for years. Not being an economist, I'm not sure what this means, and I would like to hear economists comment on it.
14
Republicans in congress need to get to work if they are going to get us back into recession before November. They're sure been trying. The response to the recession since 2011 has been the weakest on record--actually negative. If they succeed, of course, it will all be Obama's fault.
27
slower job growth=fewer tax receipts=larger budget deficits=running out of other people's money.
This Administration's policies disincentives work and business creation, and the data is there for all to see
This Administration's policies disincentives work and business creation, and the data is there for all to see
13
And I'm sure the "slowdown" in hiring has nothing to do with the push for almost doubling the minimum wage and doubling the pay at which overtime has to be paid. Nor the threat of new tariffs, higher taxes and more regulations.
If it costs more to hire people, then fewer people get hired. If it costs more to import things, forcing people to pay higher prices, they buy less. If taxes go up, then there's less incentive to earn more money. If regulations increase, it costs more to run a business and fewer business start or remain in business.
It's all so basic and obvious. I can't understand why it's so hard to add 2 and 2 to get 4.
If it costs more to hire people, then fewer people get hired. If it costs more to import things, forcing people to pay higher prices, they buy less. If taxes go up, then there's less incentive to earn more money. If regulations increase, it costs more to run a business and fewer business start or remain in business.
It's all so basic and obvious. I can't understand why it's so hard to add 2 and 2 to get 4.
15
So pay people less, import cheaper products, pay less taxes, don't provide safety regulations and we get more people working - that only adds up for the 1%.
35
No. If it were all so basic and obvious, then you'd understand the problem. But you don't.
Locations with higher minimum wages are doing just fine, taxes are near all-time lows, profits are at all time highs, and regulations exist because people can't be trusted to police themselves when money is involved.
Locations with higher minimum wages are doing just fine, taxes are near all-time lows, profits are at all time highs, and regulations exist because people can't be trusted to police themselves when money is involved.
47
"Forecasters have long suggested that as the economy approaches full employment, jobs growth must slow. "
This only makes sense if one ignores the low labor force participation rate... the real question -- not discussed in this article, or generally -- is why that rate is so low, and whether, in the long run, we can afford to have such a large part of the population outside the labor force.
This only makes sense if one ignores the low labor force participation rate... the real question -- not discussed in this article, or generally -- is why that rate is so low, and whether, in the long run, we can afford to have such a large part of the population outside the labor force.
26
I don't think it's a question of whether "we" can afford can afford to have such a large part of the population outside the labor force; rather, it's whether "they" can -- evidently, "they" can.
9
Agreed. The devil is in the premises.
4
The labor force participation rate is discussed all the time, but you (and everyone else who continually harps on it) refuse to listen because you don't want to accept that it is mostly low for non-economic reasons, not because the sky is falling.
10,000 baby boomers retire each day and they are all counted as labor force nonparticipants. As economists have been predicting for years, that demographic swing puts huge downward pressure on labor force participation. It is also low because more people are in school and they tend to stay there for much longer than they used to.
10,000 baby boomers retire each day and they are all counted as labor force nonparticipants. As economists have been predicting for years, that demographic swing puts huge downward pressure on labor force participation. It is also low because more people are in school and they tend to stay there for much longer than they used to.
32
Job creation, if vigorously applied, starting with the beginning of the George Bush administration, and continuing into the BHO period would have been much more beneficial to our overall economy especially for those expressing deep angst now. Instead of wasting huge sums on misguided military ventures in the Middle East we should have poured huge sums into the rebuilding of American infrastructure resulting in jobs, steady incomes, and higher net worth for those now hollering to make America great again.
70
Agreed. And since the price of gas is now so low, the gas tax could be raised 10 cents (it hasn't been raised in 23 years) and no one would notice. That money, if earmarked for infrastructure improvements would spur thousands of jobs; jobs that cannot be outsourced.
64