U.S. jobs growth blows past estimates, jobless rate drops to 5.5%

"Still, over the past 12 months, 3.3 million more Americans have gotten jobs. More jobs and lower gas prices have led many consumers to step up spending. That’s boosting the economy, offsetting sluggish economies overseas and giving employers the confidence to hire."
http://business.financialpost.com/2...surges-in-february-jobless-rate-drops-to-5-5/
The economy is creeping back from a depression. Happily it didn't get as bad as the "Great Depression", but a depression it was and still is.
What policies have supported this rebound? What, if anything, can be done to build the momentum?

 

Are you suggesting that Mcdonalds just started hiring a bunch of extra employees for no reason? Or are you suggesting that there has been meteoric rise recently in Mcdonalds consumption that forced them to hire a crap load of new employees? Or, are you just trying to make good news sound like bad news because you're afraid the President might get credit if we admit something good happened?

 

Tapping into America's gas reserves would do it but it's questionable for a lot of reasons. We could have sat on our gas for longer and it (*)(*)(*)(*)s the environmentalists over even if Obamaphiles don't want to admit it.

 

5.5% unemployment means that the working people today went onUnemployment.
It does not tell us about the people who ended Unemployment but still had no job.
If we add those unemployed non-collecting workers to the 5.5% of collecting Unemployed people today, we get 13% unemployed:

 

I'm trying to be a smart-(*)(*)(*) while expressing concern that many new jobs we're celebrating are low paying and part time. I'm uncertain we're as much on a rebound as people are finding ways to adapt to a persistent problem that ain't gonna go away.

Not that I'm ungrateful McDonald's for hiring up all those unemployed professionals.





​

 

The natural business cycle?

It just took longer than anyone expected, but it was gonna rebound eventually, like every cycle.

 

I'm sorry but I don't consider non citizens being Americans. I doubt 3.3 million American citizens found jobs during the last 12 months.

I am aware that 60% of those who used up all of their unemployment benefits are no longer counted as being unemployed.

Here's the CIS reprot, they use the government's numbers. -> http://cis.org/all-employment-growth-since-2000-went-to-immigrants

 

But then that paints der golfer-in-chief and his minions in a bad light, we can't have that.

 

That was a rhetorical question right?

 

"Government data show that since 2000 all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal)."
Many legal immigrants are American citizens.
The report goes on to say:
"Since the jobs recovery began in 2010, 43 percent of employment growth has gone to immigrants."
There is a difference between net growth and actual growth.
This study is opposing the Schumer-Rubio bill (S.744). This bill is being supported by many members of the Republican party such as Paul Ryan.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ng_to_have_labor_shortages_in_the_future.html
http://cis.org/all-employment-growth-since-2000-went-to-immigrants#5

I am well aware that the "Unemployment Numbers" have been "cooked" for many years by many administrations going back before Reagan. I'm more interested in the total number of jobs created. The article starts out stating that:
"U.S. employers extended a healthy streak of hiring in February by adding 295,000 jobs, the 12th straight monthly gain above 200,000."
http://business.financialpost.com/2...surges-in-february-jobless-rate-drops-to-5-5/

 

I think what he is saying is that wages have been pretty much stagnate since 2009...

 

And now for the complete story...

Did The BLS Again Forget To Count The Tens Of Thousands Of Energy Job Losses?

Why No Wage Increases: More Than Half Of Jobs Added In February Were Lowest-Quality, Lowest-Paying

Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 92.9 Million As Participation Rate Declines Again

 

Re: unemployment numbers.
I remember going back when Nixon was President and probably even further back the rule of thumb was to double the unemploymet numbers to get an accurate number of how many were out of work.

But this Obama administration, one lie after another has gone on to long, to many times.

The art of the whopper
Reality exposes the lie of the official unemployment rate

>" Telling lies with statistics is so easy even a politician can do it. An economist named Darrell Huff once wrote a best-seller about it, “How to Lie With Statistics.” Harry S. Truman identified three kinds of lies, “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” That was more than a half-century ago, and the art and science of prevarication have only been improved through frequent use.

President Obama won the “Lie of the Year Award” in 2013, given by the fact-checking team at the Tampa Bay Times (“if you like your health care plan you can keep it”), and he has taken an early lead this year with his claim that he has produced a “robust economy” with an unemployment rate that has fallen under 6 percent. In his State of the Union address last month, Mr. Obama said the jobless rate “is now lower than it was before the financial crisis” of 2007-2008. That’s a lie by statistic.

The Labor Department in its monthly unemployment rate, reported Friday, said that the jobless rate rose one-tenth of 1 percent from 5.6 percent to 5.7 percent in January, which it attributes to those who had stopped looking for work now re-entering the labor market, encouraged by a “booming” economy. Mr. Obama attributes the “boom” to his big-spending ways, and his 2016 budget calls for more poison.

Unlike the “official” jobless rate, the Labor Department’s so-called “U-6” unemployment rate includes those working part time but who want a full-time job and can’t find one. The U-6 rate stood at 11.2 percent in December, nearly double the official rate.

Mr. Obama’s claim of a robust jobless rate takes no account of the record 92.9 million Americans no longer in the labor force. The labor participation rate was 62.7 percent in December, a 38-year low that recalled the “economic malaise” of the Carter presidency..."<

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...mployment-rate-lies-exposed-by/#ixzz3Te3cQTC5

 

You are aware that the Great Recession was not a "natural" phenomenon.. Right?

 

According to Bernie Sanders unemployment is still above 10%. Are any Obama loving progressives going to call out Bernie Sanders on his claim?

Didn't think so.

 

cnnsnews.com reports that a record 55,807 women aged 16 and older are not in the labor force. This is a record. Our recession is behaving like the Great Depression. One of FDR's officials admitted they had failed to bring prosperity back to the US. WW11 contributed to the recovery. Progressives lied about a Republican war on women, when in reality, they were the enemy. We didn't have to suffer through such a long recession. It was largely liberal ideology and policies which put us where we are.

 

But it was natural for us to come out of it eventually. Either that or total collapse.

 

And he would tell you that at the time Obama was elected, it was much greater than that.

 

And the government numbers only count people actively looking for work. The real unemployment numbers are slightly more than 10%.

And it also doesn't include the people who are working part time because they can't secure a full time job.

 

Sanders is correct.

 

And you do realize that the 2008 mortgage crisis (housing bubble) had been brewing since the 70's?

 

Wages have been pretty much stagnant since about 1981 and the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

 

Not since the 70's. Mid to late 90's is more like it.

 

Ah, so when the neo-cons idol, Ronald Reagan left the office in January of 1989 with the unemployment rate at 5.4%, it was really 10%-13%.


Thanks for the info!

Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.

 

Sure. I have no idea what Sanders is referring to, but the only measure that is still above 10% is U-6, which, at 11.0%, is 1.6 percentage points lower than a year ago and 6 full percentage points lower than the height of the recession.

But U-6 including people who are working part time, and so it may be a measure of underemployment, but it is not a measure of the unemployment. If that is what Sanders is doing, he's wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

No. There was no bubble in the 1970s, and even as late as the mid 90s housing prices were below historic trend lines.

- - - Updated - - -

Proof that unemployment is above 10% please. Thanks.