National unemployment rate ticks down to 7%

  • 85 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#1 Posted by Serraph105 (32220 posts) -

Hey some good news fortheeconomy in general, we were at 7.3 percent and after four months of 200,000 plus jobs added things are going a bit better, incomes are going up and what was considered healthy gains in manufacturing.

Anyways I thought you guys would enjoy hearing some good news. Feel free to add whatever you like. :)

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jobs-20131207,0,5416221.story#axzz2mpEnouo2

Avatar image for Barbariser
#3 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

This seems rather optimistic considering that Bernanke doesn't expect the U.S. to reach 6.5% unemployment till the end of 2015.

is.gdCrunchbase: is.gd is a company (Consumer Web), acquired by Memset.

Avatar image for Joedgabe
#4 Edited by Joedgabe (5134 posts) -

What kind of jobs though ? Working at mcDonalds or Burgerking isn't going to help the high rent in the cities. I personally have been thinking of moving out when i'm finished with college and an internship or 2. Also, it's holiday season, seasonal jobs.

Avatar image for supa_badman
#5 Posted by supa_badman (16714 posts) -

THANKS OBAMA.

Avatar image for chriswolves1
#6 Posted by chriswolves1 (211 posts) -

Yeah, unemployment keeps dropping because more people quit looking for work.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#7 Edited by Serraph105 (32220 posts) -

@Joedgabe said:

What kind of jobs though ? Working at mcDonalds or Burgerking isn't going to help the high rent in the cities. I personally have been thinking of moving out when i'm finished with college and an internship or 2. Also, it's holiday season, seasonal jobs.

The article covers that, it's actually quite good news.

@chriswolves1 said:

Yeah, unemployment keeps dropping because more people quit looking for work.

not so much actually.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#8 Edited by Serraph105 (32220 posts) -

Oh this was the other thing I wanted to post. It's officially better than when the economy really went into freefall back in 08.

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecAnnual
20035.85.95.96.06.16.36.26.16.16.05.85.7
20045.75.65.85.65.65.65.55.45.45.55.45.4
20055.35.45.25.25.15.05.04.95.05.05.04.9
20064.74.84.74.74.64.64.74.74.54.44.54.4
20074.64.54.44.54.44.64.74.64.74.74.75.0
20085.04.95.15.05.45.65.86.16.16.56.87.3
20097.88.38.79.09.49.59.59.69.810.09.99.9
20109.89.89.99.99.69.49.59.59.59.59.89.3
20119.19.08.99.09.09.19.09.09.08.98.68.5
20128.38.38.28.18.28.28.28.17.87.97.87.8
20137.97.77.67.57.67.67.47.37.27.37.0
Avatar image for CommandoAgent
#10 Posted by CommandoAgent (1703 posts) -

@chriswolves1 said:

Yeah, unemployment keeps dropping because more people quit looking for work.

Quote for truth.

Avatar image for junglist101
#11 Edited by junglist101 (5517 posts) -

Doesn't matter much when the value of the dollar is lower than ever...

Sorry to be a buzz kill :p

Avatar image for airshocker
#14 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

Only because they aren't using the U6 numbers. As per usual, liberals ignore this.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#15 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -
@airshocker said:

Only because they aren't using the U6 numbers. As per usual, liberals ignore this.

What exactly is your point? People generally don't use the U6 to measure unemployment, liberal or not, because the economic definition of unemployment more closely fits U3 than U6.

Avatar image for airshocker
#16 Edited by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Barbariser said:
@airshocker said:

Only because they aren't using the U6 numbers. As per usual, liberals ignore this.

What exactly is your point? People generally don't use the U6 to measure unemployment, liberal or not, because the economic definition of unemployment more closely fits U3 than U6.

It's patently ridiculous to not include those numbers.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#17 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Barbariser said:
@airshocker said:

Only because they aren't using the U6 numbers. As per usual, liberals ignore this.

What exactly is your point? People generally don't use the U6 to measure unemployment, liberal or not, because the economic definition of unemployment more closely fits U3 than U6.

It's patently ridiculous to not include those numbers.

There's nothing ridiculous about using the official unemployment rate instead of any of/all the other five in any discussion, when anyone can look them up on the internet and all six of them give the same description of the labour market anyway.

Avatar image for airshocker
#18 Edited by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

@airshocker said:

@Barbariser said:
@airshocker said:

Only because they aren't using the U6 numbers. As per usual, liberals ignore this.

What exactly is your point? People generally don't use the U6 to measure unemployment, liberal or not, because the economic definition of unemployment more closely fits U3 than U6.

It's patently ridiculous to not include those numbers.

There's nothing ridiculous about using the official unemployment rate instead of any of/all the other five in any discussion, when anyone can look them up on the internet and all six of them give the same description of the labour market anyway.

It's very ridiculous to not show the full extent of unemployment in this country. You assume all people know there are multiple numbers when in fact many people do not. Using this number is simply a way for the Obama administration to chalk up a W on a column of Ls.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#19 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Barbariser said:

@airshocker said:

@Barbariser said:
@airshocker said:

Only because they aren't using the U6 numbers. As per usual, liberals ignore this.

What exactly is your point? People generally don't use the U6 to measure unemployment, liberal or not, because the economic definition of unemployment more closely fits U3 than U6.

It's patently ridiculous to not include those numbers.

There's nothing ridiculous about using the official unemployment rate instead of any of/all the other five in any discussion, when anyone can look them up on the internet and all six of them give the same description of the labour market anyway.

It's very ridiculous to not show the full extent of unemployment in this country. You assume all people know there are multiple numbers when in fact many people do not. Using this number is simply a way for the Obama administration to chalk up a W on a column of Ls.

Someone who doesn't know about the six Us will probably be confused as hell when articles start giving two to six different numbers for unemployment (not to mention having to explain the technical differences between the Us), and the whole "U3, which has been commonly used since 1994, only exists so that Obama could get reelected by wooing the American public with an 8% unemployment rate in 2012" thing doesn't sound very believable.

Avatar image for johnd13
#20 Posted by johnd13 (9349 posts) -

We, southern Europeans, are happy for you guys.

Avatar image for horgen
#21 Posted by Horgen (117392 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Barbariser said:
@airshocker said:

Only because they aren't using the U6 numbers. As per usual, liberals ignore this.

What exactly is your point? People generally don't use the U6 to measure unemployment, liberal or not, because the economic definition of unemployment more closely fits U3 than U6.

It's patently ridiculous to not include those numbers.

Care to help someone who is ignorant on what U6 and U3 actually means?

Avatar image for Barbariser
#22 Edited by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

@horgen123 said:

@airshocker said:

@Barbariser said:
@airshocker said:

Only because they aren't using the U6 numbers. As per usual, liberals ignore this.

What exactly is your point? People generally don't use the U6 to measure unemployment, liberal or not, because the economic definition of unemployment more closely fits U3 than U6.

It's patently ridiculous to not include those numbers.

Care to help someone who is ignorant on what U6 and U3 actually means?

It's best to let the U.S. BLS (Bureau of Labour Statistics) explain, but in layman's terms, U3 is jobless civilians divided by civilians who are able and willing to work (this is also the standard economic definition of unemployment rate, which, along with being easy and simple to measure and explain, makes it the preferred number). U6 is jobless civilians plus part-time workers unable to find full-time jobs divided by civilians who are able to work. Generally U6 will be much higher than U3 and more unstable at any given point in time.

Avatar image for horgen
#23 Posted by Horgen (117392 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

It's best to let the U.S. BLS (Bureau of Labour Statistics) explain, but in layman's terms, U3 is jobless civilians divided by civilians who are able and willing to work (this is also the standard economic definition of unemployment rate, which, along with being easy and simple to measure and explain, makes it the preferred number). U6 is jobless civilians plus part-time workers unable to find full-time jobs divided by civilians who are able to work. Generally U6 will be much higher than U3 and more unstable at any given point in time.

Thank you :)

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#24 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163227 posts) -

Which good jobs have been added? And falling off unemployment does not actually mean one is employed. It means they no longer receive unemployment benefits.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#25 Posted by Serraph105 (32220 posts) -

@Iszdope said:

Answer the question about the question dagnabbit!

I went to bed.....anyways I just always check that box when making a thread.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#26 Posted by Serraph105 (32220 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

Which good jobs have been added? And falling off unemployment does not actually mean one is employed. It means they no longer receive unemployment benefits.

I'm just going to do a few copy/pastes from the article if you don't mind.

"It's not just the quantity of the jobs but the quality," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial. "These are higher-wage jobs, and a shift from a reliance on leisure and hospitality and retail gains we had seen in recent months."

Construction companies added 17,000 jobs in November, up 42% from the previous month, as the housing market rebound created more demand. And the nation's factories added 27,000 workers, the most in 20 months and 69% more than in October.

Unlike past drops in the rate, this one was not driven by discouraged workers giving up their search for work. The percentage of the population in the labor force ticked up 0.2 points to 63% in November, though that is still low by historical standards.

All that being said things are still far from great, but I still thought people would enjoy hearing a bit of relatively good (maybe just decent?) news for a change.

Avatar image for huggybear1020
#27 Posted by HuggyBear1020 (467 posts) -

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#28 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (9488 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Only because they aren't using the U6 numbers. As per usual, liberals ignore this.

Both parties use the same numbers. Of course its just rustling your jimmies simply because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Avatar image for branketra
#29 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

The unemployment rate lowering combined with the work now being done by more people is a good sign.

Avatar image for Jd1680a
#30 Edited by Jd1680a (5958 posts) -

90-95% employment rate isn't too bad.

Just wondering if the employment rate is being effected because the baby boomer generation are at retirement age. At my work, there is at least three or four retirements each year and probably be two more next year. I see an age group leaving and a younger age group filling those positions.

Avatar image for SaintJimmmy
#31 Edited by SaintJimmmy (2815 posts) -

Those numbers mean nothing in my mind. Think all the people that had to college-kid-esque $8-10 per hour jobs to get even though they have absurdly higher qualifications than that. That's hardly "employment" to me, I've seen many people do this around the town i grew up in and it's heart-breaking to see.

Avatar image for EnoshimaJunko
#32 Posted by EnoshimaJunko (322 posts) -

It'll go back up. Just give it a few months.

Besides, a drop in the unemployment rate doesn't mean the economy's getting better. This isn't the first time there's been a drop in the unemployment rate since '08. What I really wanna see is signs that the economy is truly getting better and not stagnating like it has been for the past few years.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#33 Edited by Serraph105 (32220 posts) -

@EnoshimaJunko
said:

It'll go back up. Just give it a few months.

Besides, a drop in the unemployment rate doesn't mean the economy's getting better. This isn't the first time there's been a drop in the unemployment rate since '08. What I really wanna see is signs that the economy is truly getting better and not stagnating like it has been for the past few years.

Do you have anything to back up your prediction? Because it goes directly against the trend of the last several years. Take a glance at the official numbers I posted above, and every year you will see it go up maybe a tenth of a point one or two months (never consecutively), but fall far more than that over the course of the entire year.

Also read the article, its got manufacturing and construction numbers along with information about people already with jobs getting raises.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#34 Posted by foxhound_fox (97096 posts) -

I don't think jobs are the problem for the US right now, but the crippling debt that will be impossible to get out of.

Avatar image for EnoshimaJunko
#35 Posted by EnoshimaJunko (322 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:
@EnoshimaJunko said:

It'll go back up. Just give it a few months.

Besides, a drop in the unemployment rate doesn't mean the economy's getting better. This isn't the first time there's been a drop in the unemployment rate since '08. What I really wanna see is signs that the economy is truly getting better and not stagnating like it has been for the past few years.

Do you have anything to back up your prediction? Because it goes directly against the trend of the last several years. Take a glance at the official numbers I posted above, and every year you will see it go up maybe a tenth of a point one or two months (never consecutively), but fall far more than that over the course of the entire year.

Also read the article, its got manufacturing and construction numbers along with information about people already with jobs getting raises.

Aw, just let me be a cynical bitch. It's fun.

Sure, things are looking a bit better now...but is there any guarantee that it'll continue to get better and stay that way?

@foxhound_fox said:

I don't think jobs are the problem for the US right now, but the crippling debt that will be impossible to get out of.

Agreed. We all got too much debt.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
#36 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (1254 posts) -

It's good to see that a lot of those jobs were manufacturing and production, and it's exactly what the U.S. needs to get out of the mess they are in.

Last i checked, the U.S. had about 80% of its workforce in the service industry; and while this isn't necessarily a bad thing for individual workers (doctors and lawyers are part of the service industry), it makes it nearly impossible to correct economic failures without a strong production workforce of their own.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#37 Posted by mattbbpl (15287 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

I don't think jobs are the problem for the US right now, but the crippling debt that will be impossible to get out of.

Which debt are you referring to?

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#38 Posted by foxhound_fox (97096 posts) -
@mattbbpl said:

Which debt are you referring to?

The 25 triillion and >250 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#39 Posted by mattbbpl (15287 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:
@mattbbpl said:

Which debt are you referring to?

The 25 triillion and >250 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

I'm trying to find any US held debt close to those amounts, but I can't find any. Do you have a source or context to those figures? All I could really find is this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/23/does-the-united-states-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/

Avatar image for deeliman
#40 Posted by deeliman (3816 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

I don't think jobs are the problem for the US right now, but the crippling debt that will be impossible to get out of.

The debt isn't that big of a problem. Simply put, with historically-slow domestic spending growth, a terribly incomplete and narrowly-shared economic recovery and low interest rates, this is no time to panic about budget deficits.

Avatar image for Fightingfan
#41 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

So people lost their high paying jobs, and are now getting jobs at Mcdonalds?

Avatar image for TacticalDesire
#42 Posted by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -

@junglist101 said:

Doesn't matter much when the value of the dollar is lower than ever...

Sorry to be a buzz kill :p

Inflation is actually a good thing for countries. A 2-2.2% rate is healthy.

Avatar image for TacticalDesire
#43 Posted by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Barbariser said:
@airshocker said:

Only because they aren't using the U6 numbers. As per usual, liberals ignore this.

What exactly is your point? People generally don't use the U6 to measure unemployment, liberal or not, because the economic definition of unemployment more closely fits U3 than U6.

It's patently ridiculous to not include those numbers.

Even if the statistics were to use U6 numbers one would still see a steady improvement since all of the numbers shown dating back to 2003 are based on U3 calculations. It's not like the graphic starts with U6 and switches midway through to make the drop look more impressive.

Avatar image for ristactionjakso
#44 Edited by ristactionjakso (6118 posts) -

Just as Obama's approval rating dips, the unemployment % rate lowers too? What an coincidence. If we impeach him maybe the unemployment % rate would get a lot better.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#45 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

What the **** people, it says right in the OP (you don't even have to read the fucking article which isn't that long) that the U.S. economy has added a large number of higher quality jobs this time round.

@mattbbpl said:

@foxhound_fox said:
@mattbbpl said:

Which debt are you referring to?

The 25 triillion and >250 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

I'm trying to find any US held debt close to those amounts, but I can't find any. Do you have a source or context to those figures? All I could really find is this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/23/does-the-united-states-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/

Based on that article and others I have seen, "unfunded liability" in government terms literally means the sum of projected deficits over an infinitely long period assuming X economic growth, Y spending growth and no change in tax rates/policy. So $128 trillion probably isn't actually that scary or worrying because it's divided over god knows how many decades, doesn't account for potential changes and won't even hit that mark until all of us are dead or dying.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#46 Edited by mattbbpl (15287 posts) -

@ristactionjakso said:

Just as Obama's approval rating dips, the unemployment % rate lowers too? What an coincidence. If we impeach him maybe the unemployment % rate would get a lot better.

What are you implying, precisely?

Avatar image for deeliman
#47 Posted by deeliman (3816 posts) -

@Barbariser: Then why did you bring it up?

Avatar image for deeliman
#48 Posted by deeliman (3816 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:

@ristactionjakso said:

Just as Obama's approval rating dips, the unemployment % rate lowers too? What an coincidence. If we impeach him maybe the unemployment % rate would get a lot better.

What are you implying, precisely?

He's joking...

Avatar image for Barbariser
#49 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -
@deeliman said:

@Barbariser: Then why did you bring it up?

Bring what up?

Avatar image for deeliman
#50 Edited by deeliman (3816 posts) -

@Barbariser said:
@deeliman said:

@Barbariser: Then why did you bring it up?

Bring what up?

The unfunded liabilities.