The U.S. is 'basically at full employment'

[n2doc]

Source: CNN

America's job crisis is over, says one of the nation's top economists.

"We're basically at full employment," said San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams on Monday. "That's very good news."

Williams believes the U.S. economy is "back on track," and the Fed deserves a lot of the credit for the dramatic turnaround. (President Obama too has been trying to take a "victory lap" on the economy).

Unlike presidential candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, Williams sees a lot to be happy about. He points to "good" growth of about 2% a year, and an unemployment rate that went from 10% at the worst of the Great Recession back down to just 5% now.

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/23/news/economy/us-full-employment-williams/index.html

[Throd]

1. What is the labor participation rate?

[SFnomad]

19. The labor participation rate has nothing to do with unemployment rate

But the labor participation rate sure is a number that the right wingnut Republicans obsess over.

[Throd]

38. No shit. It's more relevant.

[SFnomad]

47. No it isn't n/t

[AgerolanAmerican]

53. To actual people it is

If you stop worshiping U3 and get out of your house to talk to real people you'll see the depression that real people are living in in the real world.

[SFnomad]

81. Worshiping U3? You mean, the number they've used for generations. Of course, now that Obama is in

the White House, there is something nefarious about that number.

[AgerolanAmerican]

82. And which has been systematically manipulated for generations

The only way you can pretend U3 is a relevant number is to pretend a third of the workforce doesn't exist - they're non-persons in the U3 calculation. And if you rely on U3, they are non-persons in your calculations also.

What would you have those tens of millions of people do... cease to exist?

[SFnomad]

83. Those tens of millions of people are ...

Retired
Full Time Secondary School Students
Full Time Higher Education Students
Stay-at-Home moms or dads, by choice
Non-working Spouses
and other reasons

A small portion of those that are "out of the workforce" are people that are discouraged and not looking for work.

And now you want to say that U3 has been manipulated for generations? Ok, off to the tin foil hat brigade for you ... I should have realized you weren't someone who would have an honest conversation.

[AgerolanAmerican]

86. You're living in la-la land.

This is where the unemployed went:

[SFnomad]

87. It's clear you think you know more than you do ..

It's funny how you keep bringing up one right wing talking point after another though ....

[AgerolanAmerican]

94. Ah yes, the forgotten poor and unemployed are now a "right wing talking point"

It is clear now that your ignorance is voluntary and your conscience is absent.

[SFnomad]

96. Nope, this is just numbers and math

Something that seems to be difficult for a lot of people around here.

[snooper2]

122. And this kids is how you make 5% look like 75% on a graph

[brentspeak]

116. A Hillary shill shills for phony feel-good Wall Street U3 statistics

Why does this come as a great surprise?

[SFnomad]

117. Phony Feel-Good Wall Street U3 statistics?

[snooper2]

121. Maybe you should get out of the house and check out the rush hour traffic going into the city

LOL-

[Lucky Luciano]

56. Ridiculously false

Labor participation rate is very important.

[SFnomad]

78. Labor participation rate can be a nearly meaningless number

You have to look deeper into what percentage of those people that are out of the labor force, why they are out of it. It could be because they are ....

Retired
In Secondary School Full Time
In Higher Education Full Time
Stay-at-Home Moms or Dads, by choice
Non-working spouse, by choice
other reasons for not deciding to work
and finally, discouraged workers that are no longer looking for work.

I could give you two example societies with the exact same labor participation rate ... one would be doing just fine, the other in really bad shape. One society could have a higher labor participation rate and be in worse shape than one with a lower one.

But labor participation rate is something that right wingnuts have leeched on to, because they care tell their rubes that there are 94 million people out of work. And they eat it up, not understanding what those numbers really mean in the slightest.

[Lucky Luciano]

79. The 90 million plus thing is obvious horseshit.

The fact that the rate is down 5% in the last decade is very meaningful.

[SFnomad]

80. No, actually the 90+ million isn't. And if you don't know that, you don't understand what it is.

It's what that 90+ million is made up of that matters. And the right wingnuts would make you believe that those 90+ million people either would like to work or are moochers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Lucky Luciano]

85. Dude - you are insulting the wrong guy.

The 90m thing is horseshit as it is a half truth RW talking point like you said - I agree with that part. The fact that the rate is down 5% is extremely significant - and it is not all due to baby boomers retiring.

[SFnomad]

89. It's also not down 5% ...

When Obama got into office it was 65.7% and it's now 62.8%, that's less than 3%. And it has NEVER been above 67.3%, which happened near the end of Clinton's term.

[sendero]

101. U3 is useless..

.. and you are apparently one of the few that did not get the memo.

[Yo_Mama]

93. That's a very odd theory, remarkably novel. The participation rate is the other half of unemployment

Or, to combine them, the emp/pop employment rate:

This is the "core" 25-54. It is still at recessionary levels:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12300060

And it's not because we are too rich to have to work:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N

This is some unique economic theory ya got going. It is normal after recessions end for participation rates to slowly rise as more jobs appear and wages rise. This time, it hasn't happened.

Personal income also sucks, but really it is because we can't find good jobs:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEPAINUSA672N

[SFnomad]

95. Re: The participation rate is the other half of unemployment

No, it isn't.

[SFnomad]

114. It's not "unique theory" ... it's called math

and I know how math isn't a something that the BS cheerleaders are really strong at

[Blackjackdavey]

115. I can't hire a full staff

I'm just going to toss a little personal anecdote as food for thought during this interesting discussion. I manage one of the three largest employers in a very beautiful rural area of New York state. For three years running, I have never been at full staff -- not once, not for a second. I have been continuously seeking professionally licensed individuals to pay solidly middle class salaries to. I can barely get applicants. I will also add that my wife is also continuously hiring less skilled staff at her location -- no exaggeration -- continuously. The point is, I guess, personal choice regarding location and career path seems to be a major factor. Additionally, regional factors are at play. We have positions that we can't fill -- ever.

[hollowdweller]

124. Labor Participation Rate was lower than now back when "America was great"

That's because 1 wage earner could support a household.

I personally would love to see it go higher, if it meant that wages or benefits were going up so much that less people had to work.

It's just something the GOP uses to diminish what Obama has done. Sort of like when they claimed all of Clintons good economy was due to Bush and Reagan.

Now the truth is that people feel the economy is bad is it's because it's bad for them. Compensation historically is still pretty low. Benefits drying up.

But that doesn't have anything to do with employment, it has to do with the lack of unions, low min wage and the fact that the money that is being made is being divided up differently.

[SFnomad]

126. Someone that actually gets it

[Blanks]

127. I'm glad you pointed that out ...

The married couple thing. If only one parent worked outside the household (like they did 40-50 years ago).

The job market would look much different if only half of the people were in the work force. Something that I don't think we talk about enough as a society.

I think we are losing a lot of 'home skills' as a result, less people know how to sew, cook and repair things etc. We are much less 'handy' than we used to be.

I worked with a young lady who told me that she HAD to work in order to make her car payment, pay off her appliances and pay for day care etc. Things used to be different.

[Doremus]

130. Too bad salaries didn't keep up, huh

Unfortunately, the oligarchs grabbed the lion's share of profits and only gave us the crumbs. Now mom, dad, grandpa, grandma and junior all have to hold jobs to keep one roof over their heads.

But, yeah, we don't talk about it enough as a society. Yup.

[Blanks]

132. I'm doing ok...

Maybe mom, dad, grandma, grandpa and junior feel that they 'need' a bigger house than they can afford.

These are difficult times for those who try to live beyond their means. My wife and I lived in a house that we paid $14,500 for (in 2002). We lived there three years with our 4 children. I'm the only one that worked, and we got by just fine.

The people that I know that can't seem to get ahead don't seem to be able to drive junk cars, or live in 'fixer-uppers' or wear used clothing, or make any kind of sacrifice.

I'm not saying it's fair that the wealthy have taken the lions share of the 'riches' (and I know they have and it needs fixed), but there are steps that people can take to keep the dream alive. The people that I know that struggle with the problems you mention don't seem willing to take those steps.

I've run across several people who struggle the way you've mentioned and every one of them has that same problem. They 'deserve' a nice car, they 'deserve' a new house, or they deserve nice clothes. Then they 'deserve' the opportunity to work and the opportunity for their children to work, and the opportunity for their grandchildren to work.

In the cases where I've seen it, it's a choice that they make.

[Doremus]

136. Seems to me worldviews like yours have helped put us -and keep us- in this mess.

Me me me mine mine If I'm okay everybody should be and if they're not they brought it on themselves me me me mine mine mine

Ignorance is indeed bliss.
Let's hope reality never pays you a visit.


By the way, the personal responsibility mantra is totally rightwing. Your slip is showing.

[Blanks]

137. You're partly right...

and that's exactly what I was pointing out to you. I've sacrificed, got an education, learned how to fix things, gotten by with less and I'm doing all right.

Those folks that I've come across who aren't doing ok, they've been living as though they're 'owed' nice things and they're gonna have those things and the money is just gonna come from somewhere.

When the money doesn't come, it's someone else's fault. Yeah, I'm doing ok and I'm gonna continue doing ok because I've learned to get by within my means. That doesn't make me a right-winger that makes me a responsible adult.

I've been through my share of disasters and I know they're no fun, and I've helped more than my fair share of people down on their luck, but some people are just a bottomless pit of 'take', no matter how much you help them, they feel that they deserve more.

If you're not getting 'yours' maybe you should try sacrificing a little. It's worked for me.

[Doremus]

138. We don't look down our noses at poor people at DU

We don't disrespect folks down on their luck here because we realize that all of us, even smug douchebags like you, are one medical crisis, one chronic illness, one job outsourcing away from the streets.

So you can save all that arrogant bullshit about pulling yourself up by the bootstraps for the other mental midgets who appreciate such drivel from whence you came.

[Blanks]

139. I never look down my nose at anyone...

I'm just sharing my personal experience. I recognize that I've been lucky, but I've watched a lot of people squander a fighting chance by living beyond their means, I've seen people assume that the riches that they're receiving now will last forever, so they spend every cent they have, and then borrow against what they've bought.

I don't know anyone who is impressed by my 'drivel'. I'm pretty sure this conversation started because I pointed out that there used to be more families where only one parent HAD to work, and from the get go you decided it'd be fun to complain about the oligarchs and anyone else who is fortunate enough to be getting by.

I just happen to be someone who's fortunate enough that my entire extended family doesn't live under one roof and that all of my extended family don't have to work just to get by. I never claimed to have 'pulled myself up by my bootstraps'.

The despicable characteristics that I possess in your eyes are the ones that you've assigned to me from assumptions that you've made about me. I'm actually a very humble, hard working guy undeserving of your scorn.

Have a nice day.

[Doremus]

140. You never look down at people...except those who 'live beyond their means' (in your limited opinion)

Glad to see you agree there are oligarchs here in the good old USA though.

Plonk.

[Blanks]

141. They annoy me...

Those that I personally know that live beyond their means. It isn't that I look down my nose at them, it's that they frustrate me.

Mostly young people, it's not their fault that they don't understand personal budgets and how difficult it is to make ends meet in the current job market. There are specific persons that I have in mind when I make these comments, and it has more to do with the way times have changed than the 'quality' of the people.

Times are tough and young people aren't exposed to certain experiences the way they used to be.

Just as an example, when I was a teenager it was commonplace that teenagers drove old cars and knew how to repair tires and replace an alternator, a starter, replace the brake pads, stuff like that. My cousin and I changed out an engine in a mustang. That doesn't seem like the kind of thing that young people engage in. I'm sure it still happens, but I don't think it's as common.

My kids didn't take wood shop, metal shop or welding in school. They don't even have home ec. We aren't teaching young people survival skills for the modern era and I believe it's because we all work too hard, not just to make ends meet, but just to have stuff. In a lot of instances, cheap stuff, stuff that breaks easy.

So it's not that I'm looking down my nose at people, it's that I think a lot of people don't really get the opportunity to stop and appreciate the fresh air and the small things in life because they CHOOSE to drive a nice car and CHOOSE to live in a nice house and CHOOSE to spend a lot of money on clothes. They've made the choice to work all the time. I'm not looking down my nose at them, I pity them for making poor choices, and get a little annoyed when they complain about it.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

58. It is discussed here:

Payroll employment increases by 160,000 in April; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.0%

Please scroll down to the section "Why Won't You Talk About the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR)?"

Best wishes.

[forest444]

131. 62.8% of adults - the lowest since 1978.

With one exception: our senior citizen participation rate, which is the highest since 1960 (19%) and twice as high as in most other developed countries.

[jwirr]

2. Well as long as you are a 1%er I guess it is all good news.

[Democat]

10. What does that have to do with 1%ers?

They don't need "jobs" like us normal people.

High employment is good news for working people.

[chervilant]

111. High employment?

I finally have a "job." It's work that I love doing, but I am getting paid a pittance -- so low are my wages that I qualify for food stamps and Medicaid.

I think it's disingenuous for anyone to publish rosy "full employment" articles, but that's typical these days.

[hollowdweller]

125. Yeah but you are talking wages not employment.

If we have full employment and an increasing GDP that is good news and worthy of celebration.

The part that sucks compensation but if employees would unionize and strike they cold do something about it more than bitch.

[chervilant]

135. Apparently,

you've limited knowledge of how vilified are unions in the state where I live. Were the workers here to "unionize and strike," they'd find most jobs moved overseas or given to scabs. They'd be shown the door so fast, they wouldn't have time to even "bitch."

It is REALLY bad out here, but some refuse to see it. AND, the trumpeting of "full employment and an increasing GDP" means little to nothing for those of us who must choose between a decent meal or filling our prescriptions.

[liberal_at_heart]

3. People are not stupid. They know when their paycheck can't keep up with the

skyrocketing cost of rent, groceries, healthcare, and education.

[anigbrowl]

5. Wage rises arre what you'd expect tocome next after achieving full employment

Full employment doesn't mean 0% unemployment. It's a technical term with a narrow definition in economics.

[wolfie001]

4. From one insider slug to another.....nt

[bucolic_frolic]

6. They have diluted the product

lousy jobs, spread over more people

20 and 30 year olds call their jobs 'gigs'

They know 6 months to 2 years is the limit

People in their 50s don't call them careers, they call them temping

benefits, pensions, seniority - gone

everyone I know is trying their hand at a sideline home business

[Blackjackdavey]

129. $45,000/yr $125,00/yr full benefits/retirement

Two positions I have been trying to fill for years. At some point, responsibility for the situation described above has to trickle through society, families and individuals. Sure, the game is rigged to benefit the most wealthy among us, no doubt. But with a bit of imagination and flexibility, opportunities are still out here. Families need to read the tea leaves -- the economy is transforming, be ready to move, go someplace without a starbucks, you'll be surprised how gainfully employable you are with marketable skills when you are one of three applicants rather than 300. College? Student loans? Access? Sure, those can be obstacles but with proper planning, your kids can go to school, tuition free even. The issue is that many folks are in hyper competitive environments and seem to have bought into the "nicest," the "best," the "closest" and then are surprised when they are underemployed or when their kid is passed over for scholarships. Too many of the herd are trying to drink from the same watering hole and trampling the vegetation. If you graduate in the top 10% of your class, in New York, from any school district no matter the perceived desirability, location or quality, STEM programs are tuition free, as one example.

[bucolic_frolic]

133. Where can I apply?

I've never seen opportunity

[hobbit709]

7. Tell someone making $9/hr how he's got it so good.

[maxsolomon]

27. pays more than no job

the perfect is the enemy of the good

[Phlem]

32. What a load of crap. "the perfect is the enemy of the good"

So by that logic $8 an hr. is better than no job.

So by that logic $5 an hr. is better than no job.

So by that logic $3 an hr. is better than no job.

So by that logic working for free in the hopes of achieving a low salaried position is better than no prospects at all?

How the fuck is that a win?

[maxsolomon]

35. i didn't say it was PERFECT

at a certain point, no, a job doesn't pay better than unemployment. that's why a $15 min wage is worth fighting for.

would you prefer high unemployment AND low wages?

[Phlem]

39. I didn't say anything about perfect. Your option just becomes inhumane

when it runs it's course.

We're shipping jobs overseas, we have hardly any manufacturing and full up on low wage openings, you know what that's called?

The fucking "RACE TO THE BOTTOM".

It's been going on for, let's see...... ever!

Your position not only supports it, but perpetuates the ignorance of it.

[maxsolomon]

54. but I did say something about perfection

its GOOD that we're at this place called "full employment", even if its merely a technical term. its far better than the unemployment rate of 7 years ago.

yes, its not PERFECT because the wages haven't kept pace with the cost of living - by a long sight. there's plenty of room for improvement.

THAT is the extent of my position. You appear to be looking for a fight with me (I "support the race to the bottom", I "perpetuate ignorance&quot because I won't be a pessimist about this one statistic?

[brentspeak]

118. The statistic is a phony one

It is not "good" that the government perpetuates massaged numbers to paint a rosier picture.

[bvar22]

45. Would you like some fries with that?

What kind of sauce do you want with your nuggets?

[Cayenne]

97. Now there's an app for that

[LanternWaste]

44. Bumper-stickers are the enemy of rational thought.

Bumper-stickers are the enemy of rational thought. Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

[maxsolomon]

55. I read that on a Prius yesterday

next to a Coexist sticker.

[Democat]

8. Many people will complain no matter what

When Did Optimism Become Uncool?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/when-did-optimism-become-uncool.html

[Kip Humphrey]

9. Believing one's own propaganda can cause one to look quite foolish.

[Democat]

12. Being constantly negative also causes one to look foolish

There are people on this site who actually want Trump to win so they can complain about it for four years.

[Kip Humphrey]

15. deluding oneself regarding the facts does not support clear thinking around charting a correct

direction. I don't know any DUer who actually wants Trump to win so, for my money, your remark is both negative toward fellow DUers and delusional in that it is unsupported by fact.

[Democat]

16. Look around, there are plenty who are going to help Trump

By not voting for the Democrat.

Anyone who helps Trump to get elected, is either a right winger or they just want something to complain about for the next four years.

Unemployment has dropped under Obama, but many will not believe it because it doesn't fit what they want to believe.

[Kip Humphrey]

17. unsupported by fact.

[maxsolomon]

28. which part?

unemployment rate dropping under BHO is supported by fact.

the Sanders Absolutists threatening to withhold their vote from the nominee is anecdotal.

[brentspeak]

119. The decline of the middle class has accelerated under Obama

And that is supported by fact.

He didn't create the problem, but he's done nothing to stop the freefall.

Actually, he's accelerated it. This is a "progressive" President whose economic platform has been to 1) prop up Wall Street at all costs and 2) "do something" about workers' "wage inflation" (i.e., the elite think the bottom 75% "make too much money&quot .

[Politicub]

134. I've seen several

You're either being disingenuous or you're not paying attention. There are plenty of posts about how the system needs to completely melt down so the democratic socialist utopia magically gets ushered in.

There's an uncountable number of posts about how Trump and Hillary are essentially the same. They're complete rubbish of course.

Sanders has run one of the ugliest democratic campaigns I've seen. He can't win on the merits so he focuses on tearing others down.

[Surya Gayatri]

41. The very prospect gets some of them into a tizzy of naysaying anticipation...

"Nattering nabobs of negativity" ~ The Late, Great Spiro Agnew

[nxylas]

57. Spiro Agnew is "great" now?

I suppose Hillard M Clixon supporters would admire him.

[Surya Gayatri]

72. Damn, is irony completely dead? I guess one has to slap this on every tongue-in-cheek line:

Wink wink, nudge nudge.

[nxylas]

99. Oops, sorry

Normally, I'm pretty good at spotting sarcasm and irony, but this place has moved so far to the right that nothing would surprise me any more.

[Surya Gayatri]

100. No problem. Tongue-in-cheek isn't always obvious in writing.

[merrily]

104. You were right the first time.

[merrily]

103. Why not? War criminal Kissinger is a mentor.

[chervilant]

112. What?!?

I've not seen a single DUer claim that they "actually want Trump to win so they can complain about it for four years"!




SMDH...

[Democat]

13. What is your solution?

Many good jobs have left America for countries where labor is cheaper. They are not going to come back as long as the same Americans complaining about wages are also shopping at Walmart.

[LiberalArkie]

23. And a hell of a lot of jobs are filled by H1B's.

Know plenty of IT people making damn good money who were fired and hided by as contractors (no benefits or SS or Pension). After a few years the contractors contracts were not renewed and were replaced by H1B's.

[Jack Rabbit]

37. Of course, they're shopping at Walmart because they can't afford to shop anywhere else

. . . except perhaps Target, a racket that thrives by committing the same sins as Walmart.

The solution, my good sir, is putting the money that is now going to the 1% to work. Raise the minimum wage, restore labor unions, invest in education for the masses, and bring banking regulation to the status quo ante 1999, when Congress passed and President Clinton signed the disastrous Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Also, supplement and supplant fossil fuels with renewable energy and expand Obamacare to insure 100% of all Americans.

America once had a well-lubricated and maintained economic machine. Our Golden Age was during those years, which is not to say that even then the wasn't room for improvement. If Hillary Clinton were running for president in 1960, promising to continue the basic economic policies that were in place at that time while making society more inclusive by raising living standards for women and minorities, I would vote for her without hesitation. After all, that sounds like what Jack Kennedy ran on in 1960.

That economic machine is now broken, so when Hillary Clinton runs as the candidate of the status quo, she seems more like Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan than Jack Kennedy. That is why so many Democrats, including your most humble hare, have difficulty reconciling themselves with the thought of having another neoliberal like Mrs. Clinton as President, to say nothing of a proto-fascist like Mr. Trump.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. There is something wrong with this picture

Mr. Williams -- a central banker -- knows what it is, too. Apparently, he doesn't believe income inequality is a problem. So, with the minimum wage at a paltry $7.50/hr and 90% of new income going to the 1%, "full employment" is a good thing.

No, Mr. Williams, "full employment" is a lot of burger flipping and meaningless in this environment.

Naturally, this report comes from the Clinton News Network.

[Democat]

20. "Clinton News Network" - you sound exactly like Rush Limbaugh!

"Clinton News Network" is a right wing slur.

You're lucky the admins are asleep at the wheel right now.

[Squinch]

52. I think the sleep has drifted into coma.

[nxylas]

102. As is any criticism of the Clintons, apparently

Hillary is not under FBI investigation, that's a right-wing smear.
Hillary does not take loads of money from Wall Street, that's a right-wing smear.
Hillary has not just been narrowly overtaken by Trump in the polls, that's a right-wing smear.

No doubt the same line will continue into her presidency, if elected.

President Clinton has not just privatised social security, that's a right-wing smear.
President Clinton has not just declared war on Iran, that's a right-wing smear.

And so on.

[Democat]

107. This is a site for Democrats, you will be welcomed at a right wing site

If you support right wing conspiracies, please leave DU and go to a right wing website where you belong.

Or go back to the Primaries forum where supporting Trump is allowed.

[nxylas]

110. Thank you for proving my point

Apparently, facts are part of the right-wing conspiracy.

[chervilant]

113. Sad, really,

when the author of an OP resorts to sarcasm and personal attacks against those who contradict him/her. Such vitriol is tiresome and unnecessary.

(Welcome to my IL, home of verbal bullies, misogynists, sexists, racists, and homophobes-- and people like you. You won't be missed.)

[Ace Rothstein]

123. I've seen someone refer to CNN as the M$M on here.

I thought I was reading a transcript to a Sarah Palin speech.

[packman]

18. But Hannity keeps saying there's 90 million plus unemployed

Who's right - I'm so confused.

[Democat]

21. Look at the posts on this thread

There are plenty right here on DU who are sure that Obama is part of a conspiracy to inflate the employment numbers.

This thread reads like a pro-Trump forum.

[SFnomad]

22. Hannity lies to the rubes ... and they don't know the difference n/t

[7962]

29. Well, There ARE 90 million+ "not participating" in the workforce

BUT.....That number includes a lot of people who are still in high school or college, or over 65 & likely retired. Which brings the number that counts down by more than 1/2
So his number is correct, but not totally honest. Lind of like a few statements by our politicians. True, but not really.

[Lucky Luciano]

59. Way more than half.

Using the roughly 5% drop in labor participation and let's say 275mm people, then roughly 13.75mm people need to get jobs to get back to the old rates. There may be some drop in participation rates from boomers retiring, but not 5%.

[melm00se]

50. Labor Force Participation

numbers are defined as:

The civilian labor force participation rate is the number of employed and unemployed but looking for a job as a percentage of the population aged 16 years and over

here is the historical track:

[7962]

65. Thanks; I shouldve used that chart in my reply.

Much easier to understand

[maxsolomon]

24. i'm goign to see the glass as half full

not half empty.

Obama and the fed have done this with duct tape and bailing wire (and free money). compare it to Europe and their austerity approach to the Great Recession.

thanks, Obama. really.

[winter is coming]

34. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512012210#post5

For far too many people I know in their 50s, it's option 3.

[maxsolomon]

73. i'm sorry that you have friends that are struggling

my profession experienced massive layoffs, as well.

would you prefer that we were still at 10% unemployment? I would not.

[winter is coming]

74. That's a false choice.

I'd prefer that people who want jobs could find them, and that those jobs paid a living wage. Despite the government's happy talk about unemployment being low, there are still people out of work.

[maxsolomon]

90. there will always be people out of work, and a certain percentage of them struggling.

"full employment" does not mean 0% unemployed. you're never going to get your ideal.

5% unemployment deserves happy talk. it was twice that 8 years ago.

[Xolodno]

25. Despite the bitching by others in this thread...

...that is technically correct.

However, full employment does not mean issues of income inequality are addressed. One would "expect" wages to rise after this....but if we hit another recession....that could keep wages depressed.

And that's my big worry there, with some retailers closing stores, shutting down, etc. And the excuse that "internet sales" are taking over....well, I just don't buy that.

[d_legendary1]

26. We hemorrhaged millions of jobs thanks to NAFTA, WTO, and all

these free trade agreements we signed. How the fuck are we at full employment? This is one of those half glass full stories that ignores the fact that someone else drank the other half of the fluids and left us with the back wash.

[maxsolomon]

30. just because you don't like the quality

doesn't mean there isn't quantity.

I'd guess that many of the workers who held factory jobs shipped overseas are now not "participating" in the workforce, having retired, given up, etc.

or maybe they got other jobs - when I go to home depot or lowes, there's lots of older folks working there.

[winter is coming]

61. So we've gone from "eat your peas" to "eat your pea" because

one pea is all we can afford... and it probably has listeria.

[maxsolomon]

71. again, this official is not speaking to the quality of the jobs

simply that the unemployment rate is about as low as it can go.

[merrily]

105. No, officials carefully do NOT speak about anything that takes away from

the crap they'd like to sell us.

Never have, never will--and now we even have a law expressly saying that the government may "progagandize" its own citizens at their expense.

[islandmkl]

108. that shiny chrome strip down the side of the car sure looks snazzy, doesn't it?

no need to look under the hood...don't worry, it'll run like a charm...

[SpankMe]

31. The same yard stick

If the same yard stick was used to compute the recent employment data as was used to compute the employment data in 2008, then this finding is compelling and valid, regardless of the "labor participation rate" or other relevant stats.

Without getting mired in side statistics and petty argument, let's look at the big picture and acknowledge how far we've come.

[modestybl]

33. This is because the labor participation rate still near 40 year lows..

...explains most of this so-called "low" unemployment rate. If labor was tight, incomes would be rising, which isn't the case. A lot of this is part-time labor. And all of this with the minimum wage being an obscenely low $7.25/hr.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

[IronLionZion]

36. a positive attitude helps the economy

it causes consumers to make more purchases if they've been waiting and for employers to hire more workers and raise wages.

Low unemployment puts pressure on employers to raise wages since workers have more options to find new jobs and leave.

[Scuba]

40. There's lots of shitty jobs, so just get 3 or 4 of them and someday you may be able to ...

... send one of your kids to college!



Choose carefully!




.

[Akicita]

42. The official unemployment rate is not a good measure of employment health. Not because the President

is manipulating any numbers or anything like that. It's been the same measure for many presidents. It only measures those actively looking for work and doesn't take into account those who have given up looking or those moving from higher paying jobs to lower paying jobs or from full time to part time jobs.

Better measures of the nation's employment health are the poverty rate, wage growth, and the full time vs part time job ratio.

2% economic growth is not "good" as Williams states. It's not even average. It's anemic.

[AlbertCat]

43. The U.S. is 'basically at full employment'

So...

everyone who wants or needs a job has one..... basically?

That's what it sounds like!


No? That's not what it means?

I suspected as much.


Propaganda....

[restorefreedom]

46. not even fucking close. nt

[msongs]

48. tons of jobs available in honolulu. mostly PT tho nt

[apnu]

63. That's the problem isn't it?

Why pay someone a good full time wage when one can split the job among two part timers and cut the wage?

Its all accounting tricks to keep the rich filthy rich.

But I suspect you know that all ready.

[Raine1967]

51. This is good news, right?

I thought it was good news until I read the comments.

Can't we like good news?

[silvershadow]

60. If this is full employment then we are in real trouble. nt

[apnu]

62. The American worker has taken a pay cut.

Wages aren't keeping up with the cost of living, plus good high paying jobs are either fleeing the country (factories), or being given to foreign nationals (H1Bs), and of those highly "technical" jobs going to H1Bs, they're low balled and not really at market value.

The 1% is forcing a "wage adjustment" on America in the name of globalization. They feel the American worker "costs too much" and we're seeing their plan to drive wages down so the 1% can continue to buy new solid gold bathtubs every year.

America might be working but the people here are falling behind more and more every day.

In a few decades we'll look like Jamaica -- large swaths of people desperately working slave wages and no way out.

[dreamnightwind]

64. Ironic with the extreme homelessness in San Francisco

If he didn't get to work in a stretch limo, he'd have to step over all the homeless that have nowhere else to go but the sidewalks of SF. He's probably trained himself to not see them, makes it easier.

[maxsolomon]

70. the homeless aren't in the workforce though

they've dropped out of it a while back.

which is it: he doesn't see them because he goes to work in a limo, or he's trained himself not to see them when he steps over them?

[dreamnightwind]

84. "We're basically at full employment,"...

"We're basically at full employment," said San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams on Monday. "That's very good news."

The homeless, most of them anyway, would love to be in the workforce. We aren't at full employment, which is what my point was.

How the hell should I know if he's trained himself to not see the homeless or if he just never happens across one? If he's in SF, he's probably seeing them all the time, the number of homeless here is amazing.

The real answer is that, in the Orwellian economic newspeak he uses, these people don't exist, or at least don't count. I'm just pointing out that they do exist and need to be thought of anytime someone tells us we're at full employment.

[maxsolomon]

92. look, its a narrowly defined technical economics term

and it doesn't count people who've dropped out of the workforce, sorry. it is good news; historically, the unemployment rate rarely drops below 5%.

if you have a good idea how to turn all the homeless on the streets of SF, Seattle, Portland, etc into FTEs and get them back in the workforce, let's hear it. because when I step over them every day on my way to work, I see many that will never work again, due to opiod addiction, chronic alcoholism, disabilities, etc. I want them housed on the taxpayer's dime, but I don't expect they will become model citizens - some are lost to the workforce for good.

there are plenty out on the streets that could work construction jobs, though, and GCs in Seattle are turning over every rock to find bodies at this point. maybe we could get unemployment under 5%?

[dreamnightwind]

98. I'm quite aware how the term is defined by economists

The official unemployment rate (U-3) dropping is not necessarily good news, but all of the trendlines are on similar curves, with U-6 at about 10% whereas it was higher previously. So yes this is good news, no quibbles about it.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080415/true-unemployment-rate-u6-vs-u3.asp

A Little Background
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is responsible for measuring the nation's unemployment rate by carrying out a monthly survey, known as the Current Population Survey. Each month, the BLS contacts 60,000 randomly selected households across the country and records the employment status of each person 16 years old or older. The collected data is then used to extrapolate a variety of national labor force statistics, including six different technical measures of the unemployment rate.

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that the BLS sample of households does not reach homeless individuals, at least not many of them, so the U-4, U-5, and U-6 numbers are all probably lower than the actual rates (the "civilian labor force" number the BLS uses is probably derived from U.S. Census data, which does go to a lot of trouble to identify and count homeless people, though of course they miss some of them).

It's great that you want them housed, that would be a good step towards their recovery. Some are indeed beyond recovery or were never viable workers to begin with (inadequate physical and mental disability care). Plenty of them could still make it if given the right circumstances, which should be our goal.

My quibble with the article in the OP is the presentation of our economy as being at full employment, which is not true and is a construct useful to people who would like to see monetary policy focus on holding down inflation rather than holding down interest rates and unemployment.

[ileus]

66. LOL...what ID10T would believe this BS?

[maxsolomon]

69. which part is BS?

that the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% to 5%? or that 5% constitutes "full employment" in narrowly-defined economic terminology?

the dude is an ivory tower Fed official. blowing smoke up our ass is SOP.

[joshcryer]

67. Basic income / negative income tax is going to be necessary.

In the next decade or two. We're reaching a new paradigm. It's inevitable.

[dembotoz]

68. obviously his paychecks still cash

not so much for a lot of us

[BunkieBandit]

75. How does that saying go about,

piss, my neck and rain? If I'm correct, it applies here.

[Skittles]

76. complete bullshit

[elleng]

77. Seems to me they look at the wrong numbers.

'Full' doesn't mean 'good,' considering the wages people earn now.

[Old Union Guy]

88. Anyone who really believes government statistics is a superstitious ninny. n/t

[Yo_Mama]

91. How can it be? Look at 25-54 participation,

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS11300060

Everywhere I go, I see older people in their prime employment years doing jobs that only teens and college students used to do.

The 20-24 participation rate is strikingly poor as well:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS11300036

Teen participation rates are very low.

White:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNU01300015

Black:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNU01300018

The male no-disability 16-64 rate fell in the GR and never recovered at all:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNU01376940

Female poor too:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNU01376945

Anyone who believes we are at full employment is out of touch.

Mind you, the above rates are just for people who are either working or looking for work.

Part-time employment due to not being able to find full-time employment is very high:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNU02032199

[trudyco]

120. What great information! Thanks!

I see a slight pick up in part time employment in my world. Lots of struggling people in their 50's. Lots of underemployment.

[Yo_Mama]

128. Yes, a whackload, which means we are not at full employment.

Or even remotely close to it.

[merrily]

106. Meanwhile, elsewhere on the board as we type:

Elizabeth Warren takes on the "gig" economy--and the reply I posted to that OP before I saw this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1116&pid=78226

[islandmkl]

109. old axiom: "Math does not lie...but people do..."

in the broad array of 'statistics' any, and many, things can be 'proven' to give credit to some point, claim, analysis, etc.

if it is a matter of 'who you going to believe, these figures...or your eyes?' you might need to make sure you have looked around, not only into the numbers, but into the streets and the neighborhoods and the towns and villages and cities...

and let me know what the numbers are 'missing'...