Nation At Full Employment, Folks Bringing Home More Of Their Paychecks -- Dems Say 'Who Cares?'...

[Brain357]

Participation is still the same as under Obama. According to trump unemployment is a fake number.

 

[Dschrute3]

Participation is still the same as under Obama. According to trump unemployment is a fake number.

So you're bummed out over Full Employment and folks bringing home more of their paychecks. Gee, go figure?

 

[Brain357]

Participation is still the same as under Obama. According to trump unemployment is a fake number.

So you're bummed out over Full Employment and folks bringing home more of their paychecks. Gee, go figure?

Like trump says, it's a phony number. More like 25%. You don't believe Trump now?

 

[Dschrute3]

Participation is still the same as under Obama. According to trump unemployment is a fake number.

So you're bummed out over Full Employment and folks bringing home more of their paychecks. Gee, go figure?

Like trump says, it's a phony number. More like 25%. You don't believe Trump now?

That all you got? You so sure you're gonna get all those 'Landslides' in upcoming Elections? I know you've been boasting about em, but are you really still so sure? I mean, Full Employment and folks bringing home more of their paychecks, seems pretty ok with most rational common sense-thinking Americans. I don't see anything Democrats offering, beating that.

 

[Moonglow]

I think most Americans care. Trump is on a bit of a roll. Will the hateful Democrat pessimism come back to bite em in upcoming Elections? What do you think?

I never in my life understood why people go to work for other people to earn a little dough when they could be self-employed and make twice if not three times an hourly wage.and the tax deductions are a bonus, the govt. pays 50% of yer social security and medicare...

 

[Brain357]

Participation is still the same as under Obama. According to trump unemployment is a fake number.

So you're bummed out over Full Employment and folks bringing home more of their paychecks. Gee, go figure?

Like trump says, it's a phony number. More like 25%. You don't believe Trump now?

That all you got? You so sure you're gonna get all those 'Landslides' in upcoming Elections? I know you've been boasting about em, but are you really still so sure? I mean, Full Employment and folks bringing home more of their paychecks, seems pretty ok with most rational common sense-thinking Americans. I don't see anything Democrats offering, beating that.

Sorry but it's a phony number according to TRUMP! Participation is just as low as it was under obama. The rules haven't changed, if it was a fake number then it is a fake number now, sorry. Your hypocrisy is noted.

 

[Dschrute3]

Participation is still the same as under Obama. According to trump unemployment is a fake number.

So you're bummed out over Full Employment and folks bringing home more of their paychecks. Gee, go figure?

Like trump says, it's a phony number. More like 25%. You don't believe Trump now?

That all you got? You so sure you're gonna get all those 'Landslides' in upcoming Elections? I know you've been boasting about em, but are you really still so sure? I mean, Full Employment and folks bringing home more of their paychecks, seems pretty ok with most rational common sense-thinking Americans. I don't see anything Democrats offering, beating that.

Sorry but it's a phony number according to TRUMP! Participation is just as low as it was under obama. The rules haven't changed, if it was a fake number then it is a fake number now, sorry. Your hypocrisy is noted.

Well, y'all Communists/Democrats sure aren't offering anything better. Trump's doing fine.

 

[Faun]

A list of conservatives who have gone silent on the labor participation rate under Trump

That and "real unemployment."

According to Trump, the unemployment rate could be as high as 40%. You don't hear that bullshit anymore either.

Never trust a con.

 

[Brain357]

Participation is still the same as under Obama. According to trump unemployment is a fake number.

So you're bummed out over Full Employment and folks bringing home more of their paychecks. Gee, go figure?

Like trump says, it's a phony number. More like 25%. You don't believe Trump now?

That all you got? You so sure you're gonna get all those 'Landslides' in upcoming Elections? I know you've been boasting about em, but are you really still so sure? I mean, Full Employment and folks bringing home more of their paychecks, seems pretty ok with most rational common sense-thinking Americans. I don't see anything Democrats offering, beating that.

Sorry but it's a phony number according to TRUMP! Participation is just as low as it was under obama. The rules haven't changed, if it was a fake number then it is a fake number now, sorry. Your hypocrisy is noted.

Well, y'all Communists/Democrats sure aren't offering anything better. Trump's doing fine.

25% real unemployment isn't good. Trump said so himself!

 

[NightFox]

The Nation is at full employment?

Using the definition that economists use, it's very close to full employment.

It doesn't however mean that we've solved the nagging structural unemployment problems that we have been experiencing for the last decade and a half.

Yes, many economists love to utilize specific jargon that doesn't approximate reality.

It's not "many economists" jargon it has a very specific meaning with respect to the state of the labor market and it does "approximate reality" pretty well with respect to the relationship of the state of employment and inflation .

Unfortunately too many people interpret it as "everybody has a job that wants one" which is NOT what it means.

Full employment means full employment in the real world..........

In economics full employment means the point at which demand for labor surpasses supply (supply as in workers possessing skills that are in demand by employers) thus causing the price of labor to rise due to competition for available labor at which point the standing "unemployment rate" reflects frictional unemployment (i.e. workers shuffling between jobs).

Unfortunately full employment doesn't and can't account for structural unemployment, i.e. those individuals who want a job but do not posses skill sets that are in demand by employers and thus are for all intents and purposes unemployable (often referred to as "discouraged workers"), which IMHO is not primarily a failure of the private economy but of the "education system" and government policy that tends to drive un- & semi- skilled work offshore.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think most Americans care. Trump is on a bit of a roll. Will the hateful Democrat pessimism come back to bite em in upcoming Elections? What do you think?

The nation is not at full employment. Sure, the BLS stats might say so, but true unemployment is another matter entirely.

 

[NightFox]

I think most Americans care. Trump is on a bit of a roll. Will the hateful Democrat pessimism come back to bite em in upcoming Elections? What do you think?

The nation is not at full employment. Sure, the BLS stats might say so, but true unemployment is another matter entirely.

Are you familiar what the term "full employment" means?

…. define "true unemployment".

 

[Mac1958]

It's all about wage growth now. We need to get above 3% and stay there a while.

There was massive, historic slack in the economy, and that's the figure that will tell us how much slack remains.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think most Americans care. Trump is on a bit of a roll. Will the hateful Democrat pessimism come back to bite em in upcoming Elections? What do you think?

The nation is not at full employment. Sure, the BLS stats might say so, but true unemployment is another matter entirely.

Are you familiar what the term "full employment" means?

…. define "true unemployment".

The True Unemployment Rate: U6 Vs. U3

 

[NightFox]

It's all about wage growth now. We need to get above 3% and stay there a while.

There was massive, historic slack in the economy, and that's the figure that will tell us how much slack remains.

What "slack" are you referring to?

Labor participation?
idle capital?

IMHO If you're referring to the labor market then accelerating wage growth won't tell you much about "slack" since it will be an indication of the competition for available (and marketable) labor, not the pool of structurally unemployed workers. Higher wages might entice skilled workers to come off the bench (e.g. retirees to come back into the job market) but it doesn't help those whose skills don't match what employers want. It's also likely to drive immigration for skilled workers or more specifically for employers to lobby the Washington Crime Syndicate to raise immigration caps.

 

[NightFox]

I think most Americans care. Trump is on a bit of a roll. Will the hateful Democrat pessimism come back to bite em in upcoming Elections? What do you think?

The nation is not at full employment. Sure, the BLS stats might say so, but true unemployment is another matter entirely.

Are you familiar what the term "full employment" means?

…. define "true unemployment".

The True Unemployment Rate: U6 Vs. U3

Unfortunately that's counting people that don't possess skills that the market is looking for (in other words they're not marketable) AND people that aren't actively seeking work (i.e. haven't looked within 4 weeks) which doesn't make sense because if someone isn't actively selling labor (i.e. looking for a job) then you can't really count them as "unemployed". It would be like counting automobiles owned and in use by consumers as "unsold inventory" for auto makers. It also counts marginally attached workers as unemployed which again is misleading because they're people that aren't actively trying to sell their labor.

One of the primary indicators we get from the unemployment rate is the state of the labor market for labor that is actively trying to sell their labor in it (i.e. supply and demand of labor) and possess skills that the market actually wants, IMHO counting all these people that aren't actively attempting to sell their labor OR don't possess marketable labor doesn't really tell you about the health of the labor market; it does however give you an indication of qualitative measures of the labor force itself (i.e. is your labor force "up to date" with respect to what employers want and need).

 

[Mac1958]

It's all about wage growth now. We need to get above 3% and stay there a while.

There was massive, historic slack in the economy, and that's the figure that will tell us how much slack remains.

What "slack" are you referring to?

Labor participation?
idle capital?

IMHO If you're referring to the labor market then accelerating wage growth won't tell you much about "slack" since it will be an indication of the competition for available (and marketable) labor, not the pool of structurally unemployed workers. Higher wages might entice skilled workers to come off the bench (e.g. retirees to come back into the job market) but it doesn't help those whose skills don't match what employers want. It's also likely to drive immigration for skilled workers or more specifically for employers to lobby the Washington Crime Syndicate to raise immigration caps.

Regardless of the definition of the term, bouncing around 2.6% to 2.8% just isn't going to cut it.

Although there are a lot of positive signs, markets aren't going to wait on strong wage growth forever.
.

 

[NightFox]

It's all about wage growth now. We need to get above 3% and stay there a while.

There was massive, historic slack in the economy, and that's the figure that will tell us how much slack remains.

What "slack" are you referring to?

Labor participation?
idle capital?

IMHO If you're referring to the labor market then accelerating wage growth won't tell you much about "slack" since it will be an indication of the competition for available (and marketable) labor, not the pool of structurally unemployed workers. Higher wages might entice skilled workers to come off the bench (e.g. retirees to come back into the job market) but it doesn't help those whose skills don't match what employers want. It's also likely to drive immigration for skilled workers or more specifically for employers to lobby the Washington Crime Syndicate to raise immigration caps.

Regardless of the definition of the term, bouncing around 2.6% to 2.8% just isn't going to cut it.

Isn't going to "cut it" for whom?

Although there are a lot of positive signs, markets aren't going to wait on strong wage growth forever.
.

Which markets?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

the libs are going insane.....

A list of conservatives who have gone silent on the labor participation rate under Trump

By the looks of the graph in your own liberal fake news link the LPR is leveling off and beginning to grow...you guys are so screwed in November its not funny....

Liar.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Rambunctious]

the libs are going insane.....

A list of conservatives who have gone silent on the labor participation rate under Trump

By the looks of the graph in your own liberal fake news link the LPR is leveling off and beginning to grow...you guys are so screwed in November its not funny....

Liar.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

The LPR is not a gage on the economy nor is it a reflection of employment...the unemployment percentage is what is important and its under 4% for the first time in decades....but you already know that you are just doing what a monkey does...tossing shit at a wall to see if it sticks....