The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[Faun]

In other words: All cooked up statistics designed to say whatever the government wants you to hear.

Nope. All the numbers are generated by the same career bureaucrats that collected the data regardless of which president they worked under.

I guess it's just unfortunate for many people that the government no longer recognizes their existence.

Exactly how do you think the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for December 2014 was 5.6%. This is Obama's 72nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.45% in June 2014 at 66 months to the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.24%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.24%

593/72 = 8.236111 = 8.24%

He will be lower than Ronnie by the time he completes his 8 years, EVEN AFTER what the GOP dumped in his lap

Perhaps thanks to the labor force participation rate which is the lowest its been since 1978. If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% like it was under Bush, the unemployment rate would be 10% at the moment. Right now the labor force participation rate is 62.7% for the last month reported which is December 2014. That is where the labor force participation rate was in February 1978. For 82 out of 96 of Bush's months in office, the labor force participation rate was ABOVE 66%.

Obama has 24 months left. Its not exactly clear where things will end up. Trends whether up or down don't necessarily continue. Things can change. Even so, 6 months from now, he will still be at the bottom of this list for sure.

'


Not that old meme AGAIN

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002


The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

OBAMA 7+ MILLION NET PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 6 YEARS (11+ MILLION AFTER FEB 2010) AFTER DUBYA LOST 1+ MILLION, LOL

Regardless, none of that changes the fact that if labor force participation was as high as it was on average under Bush, the current unemployment rate would 10.33%.

Can the current economy with Obama in the White House for the past six years support a labor force participation rate of 66% or 67% like the Bush and Clinton economies did and the answer to the question is NO! Whether its because someone is retiring for whatever reason or has dropped out of the regular labor market because of an inability to find work, it does not change the basic facts. There are 8 million people in the regular unemployment line at the moment. If another 8 million people showed up, which is what would happen if labor force participation rate went up to 66% were it was for 82 out of 96 months under Bush, few would get jobs and you would have nearly 16 million people in the unemployment line.

Imagine what the unemployment rate under Bush would have been, if the labor force participation rate was only 62%. Bush's average of 5.27% per month would probably be less than 3% per month.

 

[U2Edge]

Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.

Go figger

Reagan faced a larger economic hurdle with the twin problems of high unemployment and high inflation. Reagan did very well which is why he was re-elected in a landslide victory in 1984 winning every state in the Union except Minnesota. Obama can't get anywhere near that.

More importantly, there are things like National Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy where Reagan was a lot more successful in than Obama in several ways.

 

[Staidhup]

So the liberal drool still talks about Bush, primarily the financial melt down that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for. Come on, get over it, the past seven years has been a joke. Time to look forward and stop living in the revisionist past to deflect from the fact that under the current administration leadership has been focused on class warfare.

 

[U2Edge]

As Republicans fumble over unemployment

Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)

and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)

The labor force participation rate

If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.

You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.

But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.

No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.

The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.

The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!

Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.

There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.

This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.

Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.

 

[U2Edge]

If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.

You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.

But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.

It is clear to me that the poster chose an LPR of 66% because that was what it was for 82 of the 96 months that Bush was in office. The question you should have asked is why does a larger percentage of the population not want a job?

Well, its not necessarily that they don't want a job. There are many reasons why the participation rate would never be 100%. Some people are sick, disabled, have gone back to school full time, do volunteer work or house work which is not paid employment but still work, care for sick family or relatives and take care of children, once again not paid employment but certainly an important service that is being provided and finally, ever since the start of the 20th century, then there is this new thing called retirement which never existed before in human history.

 

[U2Edge]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

It was 5.27%

 

[Faun]

Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.

Go figger

Reagan faced a larger economic hurdle with the twin problems of high unemployment and high inflation. Reagan did very well which is why he was re-elected in a landslide victory in 1984 winning every state in the Union except Minnesota. Obama can't get anywhere near that.

More importantly, there are things like National Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy where Reagan was a lot more successful in than Obama in several ways.

The economy Reagan took over was nowhere near as bad as the economy Obama inherited. First and foremost, the economy was not even in recession in January, 1981. The unemployment rate was higher when Obama became president and increasing rapidly. Over a million jobs disappeared in one month.

And at this same point in both presidencies ... Obama has averaged 8.2% unemployment, Reagan averaged 8.1%. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6%, under Reagan it was 6.6%. Gallup currently scores Obama's JAR at 46%, Reagan was at 49%.

Regardless how you recall Reagan, they were pretty much evenly ranked at this point.

 

[U2Edge]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

Those 2 events, as bad as they were, paled in comparison in terms of the damage done to the economy. The only reason Duhbya averaged 5.7% was a) he started at 4.2%; and b) the housing boom, which pumped up GDP and created millions of jobs.

Fact remains, while Bush was in office the average unemployment rate was 5.27% which was great for main street American far better than it has been while Obama has been sitting in the White House. That's a hard indisputable FACT! People can have great reasons and arguments to try and explain those facts, but those are opinions which are debatable.

 

[Faun]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

It was 5.27%

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

 

[U2Edge]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

It was 5.27%

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

 

[Faun]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

Those 2 events, as bad as they were, paled in comparison in terms of the damage done to the economy. The only reason Duhbya averaged 5.7% was a) he started at 4.2%; and b) the housing boom, which pumped up GDP and created millions of jobs.

Fact remains, while Bush was in office the average unemployment rate was 5.27% which was great for main street American far better than it has been while Obama has been sitting in the White House. That's a hard indisputable FACT! People can have great reasons and arguments to try and explain those facts, but those are opinions which are debatable.

And yet. Duhbya will be remembered as the president who nearly doubled unemployment on his watch as well as being only other president along with Herbert Hoover since the Great Depression to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

 

[U2Edge]

Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.

Go figger

Reagan faced a larger economic hurdle with the twin problems of high unemployment and high inflation. Reagan did very well which is why he was re-elected in a landslide victory in 1984 winning every state in the Union except Minnesota. Obama can't get anywhere near that.

More importantly, there are things like National Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy where Reagan was a lot more successful in than Obama in several ways.

The economy Reagan took over was nowhere near as bad as the economy Obama inherited. First and foremost, the economy was not even in recession in January, 1981. The unemployment rate was higher when Obama became president and increasing rapidly. Over a million jobs disappeared in one month.

And at this same point in both presidencies ... Obama has averaged 8.2% unemployment, Reagan averaged 8.1%. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6%, under Reagan it was 6.6%. Gallup currently scores Obama's JAR at 46%, Reagan was at 49%.

Regardless how you recall Reagan, they were pretty much evenly ranked at this point.

The misery index, combining unemployment and inflation was higher in Reagan's early term than it ever was under Obama. Unemployment early in Reagan's term reached 10.8%, higher than any month under Obama and inflation was in double digits. Obama never had to deal with high inflation. Reagan was forced to deal with BOTH high inflation and high unemployment at the same time.

 

[Faun]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

It was 5.27%

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

 

[U2Edge]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

Those 2 events, as bad as they were, paled in comparison in terms of the damage done to the economy. The only reason Duhbya averaged 5.7% was a) he started at 4.2%; and b) the housing boom, which pumped up GDP and created millions of jobs.

Fact remains, while Bush was in office the average unemployment rate was 5.27% which was great for main street American far better than it has been while Obama has been sitting in the White House. That's a hard indisputable FACT! People can have great reasons and arguments to try and explain those facts, but those are opinions which are debatable.

And yet. Duhbya will be remembered as the president who nearly doubled unemployment on his watch as well as being only other president along with Herbert Hoover since the Great Depression to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

For people who only look at the first month and the last month of an administration and absurdly believe they can form a summary of that administration just based on that, that may be true. But for those who really dig into the details and look at all 96 months, they will find Bush was a far better President than his biased liberal critics would like to claim.

 

[U2Edge]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

It was 5.27%

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

Look, its common sense that we would not base your record in school on the grades from your first month of classes and the last month. GPA takes into consideration all the grades you posted and averages them.

If you are going to accurately assess any President you need to look at each individual month and not just where things happened start in January 2001 and ended in December 2008. January 2001 and December 2008 don't tell you what happened during the Bush administration. You can't make an assessment of any President simply based on two months out of 96. It does not matter if you are talking about the economy, foreign policy, national security, education etc. In order to look at the entire record, your going to have to look beyond January 2001 and December 2008.

Part of you agrees, even if you won't admit it, since you continue to participate in this thread.

 

[Faun]

Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.

Go figger

Reagan faced a larger economic hurdle with the twin problems of high unemployment and high inflation. Reagan did very well which is why he was re-elected in a landslide victory in 1984 winning every state in the Union except Minnesota. Obama can't get anywhere near that.

More importantly, there are things like National Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy where Reagan was a lot more successful in than Obama in several ways.

The economy Reagan took over was nowhere near as bad as the economy Obama inherited. First and foremost, the economy was not even in recession in January, 1981. The unemployment rate was higher when Obama became president and increasing rapidly. Over a million jobs disappeared in one month.

And at this same point in both presidencies ... Obama has averaged 8.2% unemployment, Reagan averaged 8.1%. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6%, under Reagan it was 6.6%. Gallup currently scores Obama's JAR at 46%, Reagan was at 49%.

Regardless how you recall Reagan, they were pretty much evenly ranked at this point.

The misery index, combining unemployment and inflation was higher in Reagan's early term than it ever was under Obama. Unemployment early in Reagan's term reached 10.8%, higher than any month under Obama and inflation was in double digits. Obama never had to deal with high inflation. Reagan was forced to deal with BOTH high inflation and high unemployment at the same time.

The misery index is not a good indicator of the economy. And unemployment went as high as 10.8% because of policies set forth by Reagan and Volker to fight inflation.

And even then, despite a 10.8% unemployment rate, only 1.2 million jobs were lost from Reagan's recession ... compared to Bush's recession, which lost 8.6 million jobs.

Real GDP during Reagan's recession fell only 1.4% ... compared to Bush's recession when it fell a whopping 4.2%.

 

[Faun]

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

It was 5.27%

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

Look, its common sense that we would not base your record in school on the grades from your first month of classes and the last month. GPA takes into consideration all the grades you posted and averages them.

If you are going to accurately assess any President you need to look at each individual month and not just where things happened start in January 2001 and ended in December 2008. January 2001 and December 2008 don't tell you what happened during the Bush administration. You can't make an assessment of any President simply based on two months out of 96. It does not matter if you are talking about the economy, foreign policy, national security, education etc. In order to look at the entire record, your going to have to look beyond January 2001 and December 2008.

Part of you agrees, even if you won't admit it, since you continue to participate in this thread.

No part of me could possibly agree with that since it's nonsense. According to you, Carter (6.5) did a better job than Reagan (7.5) and you seem to think it doesn't matter that Reagan lowered the unemployment rate from 7.5% to 5.4%.



As far as applying your GPA analogy to Bush, he might have a good GPA (because started with a good GPA) but then he flunked high school and failed to graduate.

 

[Faun]

As Republicans fumble over unemployment

Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)

and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)

The labor force participation rate

If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.

You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher."
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.

But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like). That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.

No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.

The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.

The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!

Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.

There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.

This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.

Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.

And yet, the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market.

Never was.

 

[edthecynic]

The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008.

Gee, EXACTLY the same time the first Boomers reached eligibility for SS benefits!!!!!!!!