Means little...guarantee you it will be revised downwards over the next few months.
Another of yer laughable and typically incorrect "guarantees."
>>the Household survey - which the U-3 is based on - showed only 67,000 newly employed. And only 23,000 newly employed since February (both seasonally adjusted). If you are going to give credence to the U-3, then you HAVE to give credence to the survey it is based on or you are a hypocrite on this. And the household survey says June was a lousy month for new employment.
Again, the household survey is a poor measure of employment. I won't say yer a hypocrite, but you are incapable of interpreting BLS data, and since this has been explained to you many times, that makes you a liar.
The 25-54 age range … employment-population ratio is 77.8...it was over 80 before the Great Recession.
That was a bubble high. Do we want another collapse like we had in 2008?
>>And (outside of during that recession), the present ratio is lower now then at any time since 1987
It hit 77.8% in Dec 1986, the first time it was that high since the series started in 1948. Are you saying the US economy was weak 1948-86?
You guys make it easy when all I need to do is C & P from a previous post.
There are 3.87 million unemployed 25-54, and 23.6 not in the labor force, a total of 27.47 million. (
source)
There are 97.9 million Americans 25-54 (
source), and 27.47 million of them (28%) are not working. But how many of the 23.6 million not in the labor force say they want a job? 858K, or 3.6%. There were 751K in Q1 2006 at the height of the housing bubble, which was 0.5% of the labor force. Last month's total is … 0.5%.
>>I would hardly call that 'close to back to normal'.
As always, yer descriptions of the labor market are completely worthless.
The oldest of the Boomers turned 65 in 2011, and many are working until older ages.
A lot of people retire at sixty-two when they become eligible for Social Security. And with the ACA, you don't need to wait until yer 65 to be eligible for affordable health insurance.
When they qualify to receive unemployment, i'd think.
Ya mean after they're employed long enough and earn enough to be eligible, and then lose their job through no fault of their own?
Lol !!! I described and criticized the Lefts strategy of mitigating bad economic data for purely political purposes and here you are proving my point
How was that accomplished?
>>I thought Libs were supposed to be sympathetic to the struggle of the common man.
Well, yer correct about one thing then.
>>Nope, Libs perpetuate narratives that are based on the pretense that he doesn't exist. Like I said, its cruel
Liberals say the common man doesn't exist? Interesting.
>>Im sure there are some on the Left that would love to point to a vibrant and growing economy as a example of Obama's success, but your ideology doesn't produce growing, healthy market based economies.
Hey, ya got two things correct. Ideology doesn't produce a "vibrant and growing economy," effective economic policies do. We had that in the second half of the 1990s and we're now returning to that after Obummer cleaned up the
second mess you SSE morons created.
>>It produces dependence, mediocrity, division and stagnation
14.8 million full-time, private-sector jobs and wages up ten percent since 2012. Deficit as a percentage of GDP down 75%. Very low inflation. Twenty million more Americans with health insurance.
>>you're forced to spread misinformation in the hopes that it will influence the naive because those are the only people that will listen to your marginalizations
Nah, that's
yer job, the only one yer capable of.
>>the last 8 years of whats essentially base banana republic style propaganda spread by the Obama administration and their supporters
You have no facts to counter those posted by Obummer's
LIIIIIIBRUL supporters. All you do is lie and lose.
