You're a funny guy. My mother grew up in a trailer and in a single year I've probably have spent $20,000 on the most adorable Golden Doodle ever.
154,430,000: U.S. Hits Record Employment in January... 154,430,000: U.S. Hits Record Employment in January; But Record 95,665,000 Not in Labor Force February 2, 2018 | The new year is off to a strong start on the employment front.
Interesting that we can have record employment, low unemployment, yet record high not in labor force. Obviously the definition of those not in the labor force prohibits them from being counted as unemployed. The numbers as reported seem to be more politically driven than actual facts...
It is curious how the significance of labor force participation shifts over time and administrations. During the obama years labor force participation was held up as perhaps THE MOST IMPORTANT MEASURE OF administration job performance. The bad numbers were evaluated to be an unforgivable scandal These days it appears the adminisration has no connection at all with labor force participation. Instead these statistics are submitted as proof of the huge number of slothful workers
Are either party relevant? Obama and co went with the orthodox: higher participation must mean greater well-being. Trump will just celebrate employment figures as he looks for easier macro figure to grunt about. Neither refers to 'good jobs'. Neither achieved, or will achieve, anything of note.
Crunching numbers on a national scale is pretty tough. Throughout my life I've had severe bouts of joblessness, but never what I would call unemployment. My grandpa was dying and needed a caretaker, my father was dying and needed a caretaker. Since we live in a day and age where one can easily support themselves without a traditional job, and where many people choose to do so, it'll only get tougher to track the numbers. 40% of people might not "work", but they still have societal roles somewhere.
First the 'reason' for an unemployment or work force number needs to be defined? Depending on this answer will dictate the equation...
Everything government does has a legal definition. I'm not well versed in unemployment terminology, but I believe it's based on receiving unemployment benefits and BLS surveys to determine the other metrics beyond the official unemployment figures. Child and nursing care is exorbitantly expensive, which leads many parents/younger adult children to leave or not enter the workforce because when I was 19 I certainly wasn't earning the $60,000/year a caretaker ran. Would be real nice if there was a way to accurately measure and compile data for 320 million people on a constant basis, but that's easier said than done.
Statistics are always easily manipulated for political purposes. Numbers are easy to spin, and even an amateur could do it, while words take a gift. I'm pretty damn good, but I doubt I could get 9 out of 10 doctors to recommend eating bacon every day for good health, or that cigarettes were a statement of female empowerment.
The Clinton Administration changed the definitions in 1994. If you have not looked for work in the 30 day period prior to the survey, you are not counted as unemployed, but you are considered marginally attached and appear in U-6. If you have not looked for work in the last 6 months prior to the survey, you are counted as not in the labor force.
For real political manipulation you'd have to look at Thatcher and the 80s. After engineering a recession arguably worse than the Great Depression, they changed the definition a dozen or so times. Of course, if you're interested in unemployment, you can stick with consistent definition within labour force survey
Makes no difference who/when the rules change. The question is usually 'why' do the numbers not make much sense with reality and the answer is the numbers are more for political purposes than anything. How many 'discouraged workers' do we have who have not been able to find employment and therefore stopped looking...my guess is several millions. Also interesting is that based on your 30 day and 6 month statements, both of them should be collecting unemployment insurance, and if they are collecting UI they should be counted as unemployed...
The Donald Makin' America Great Again... 155,965,000 Employed in June: 11th Record-Setter Under Trump August 3, 2018 – Following last month’s strong employment report, the numbers released on Friday were even better in some respects. See also: Government Jobs Down 13,000 in July August 3, 2018 - Government jobs in the United States dropped by 13,000 in July, according to new employment numbers released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The $1 trillion in deficit spending this year is creating approximately 10,000,000 jobs. The projected $1.4 trillion deficit spending for next year will create approximately 14,000,000 jobs. The US does not have any current emergencies that can justify deficit spending so deficit spending has become SOP...standard operating procedure. We basically have a false economy propped up by deficit spending. Take away the deficit spending and what will happen? Our kids and grand kids are going to pay higher taxation to pay down the debt that we are creating today with our self-serving and greedy behavior. Trump touts economic growth and job creation as if it's something he created out of carefully planned and strategic short and long term economic decisions...but the reality is Trump is creating a facade based solely on the smoke and mirrors of deficit spending...
First, Trump has no significant position to impact on the 'real' economy. He's more motivated by pandering to right wing knuckle draggers (and therefore will only harm growth). Second, your position over deficits continues to be nonsensical. The deficit isn't the issue (as, except when overheating, it can be continually positive), the issue is why its necessarily needed to stabilise the economy (i.e. extreme inequalities).
Trump and his cronies are budgeting $1+ trillion in deficit spending as SOP and now he's talking about a Space Force which is more billion$/trillion$...all of which energizes the economy and impacts the 'real' economy. I suggest to you again that $22 trillion in debt spending by the US has overheated our economy today! What would the economy of the UK look like today if you had $22 trillion in debt with annual $1+ trillion deficit spending?
According to the US Labor Department, the inflation rate is 2.9%. I suggest economists would prefer inflation to be 2% or lower. National inflation rates are meaningless for the tens of millions of Americans who work and try to live in the nation's employment and population centers; San Francisco 3.9%, Seattle 3.3%. The most critical issues for these areas, including where I live 60 miles north of San Francisco is affordability...