"The percentage of Americans in the workforce dropped to its lowest level in 31 years.
The latest numbers were “downright dismal,” TD Economics senior economist James Marple said in a description echoed by many others.
The economy remains hobbled in the aftermath of the deepest recession since the 1930s and simply isn’t expanding fast enough to spark more hiring. Consumers, whose spending accounts for more than two-thirds of economic activity, have been whittling down debts and spending cautiously. The government reported last week that economic growth clocked a disappointing 1.7 percent annual pace in the April-June quarter.
The economy is expected to grow at an annual rate of around 2 percent for the rest of the year, consistent with only 90,000 new jobs a month.
The disappointing numbers are a blow to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. Unemployment is down from a peak of 10 percent in October 2009, but no incumbent president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has faced re-election with unemployment higher than 7.8 percent."
The White House was crowing about unemployment dropping from 8.3% to 8.1%.
The way things are going it may very well fall below 8%. Unfortunately, it will be because of many more Americans dropping from the work force.
If I were a democrat I would be seriously thinking about either voting for Romney or staying home. This President is so very bad that people need to think past party lines.
As I read, we’re going in the wrong direction when it comes to jobs created each month. After this latest unemployment report, fewer jobs have been created per month in 2012, than where created on average per month in 2011. Not good. It is more signs that the economic ideas tried over the last few years, stimulus government spending and quantitative easing, are not working. New ideas are needed.
“Lady Godiva, Tax Protester”
snippet from Elizabeth MacDonald’s article:
…I’m not suggesting tea partiers should become streakers. But I am saying that throughout history, just two things have proven to test people?s sanity. And it ain?t just rising gas prices. The answer: food-price spikes, and unjust tax hikes.
The point being is this: The recession ended in June of 2009, and the U.S. is only creating on average 139,000 jobs a month this year, versus 153,000 a month last year. The trend is going in the wrong direction.
Could it be Washington, D.C. policies?
The U.S. economy must add 13.3 million jobs over the next three years, or 370,000 jobs each month, to pull the unemployment rate down to 6 %. That requires GDP growth rates at a 4% to 5% pace.
But instead, the White House is focusing on raising taxes as the cure all. Ask yourself this: if tax hikes were the answer, why is California?s unemployment rate at around 12%?..
This has been going on for awhile now. The true unemployment rate really has not changed too much over the past few years. The participation rate the BLS uses to determine the size of the labor force has just been steadily dropping.
The economy added only 96,000 new jobs in August, slipping from July?s 141,000 tally, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent from the previous 8.3 percent. However, most analysts agree that is merely the result of 368,000 unemployed people, discouraged by the stubborn hiring market, who gave up looking.
[quote]hannahB wrote:
The economy added only 96,000 new jobs in August, slipping from July?s 141,000 tally, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent from the previous 8.3 percent. However, most analysts agree that is merely the result of 368,000 unemployed people, discouraged by the stubborn hiring market, who gave up looking.[/quote]
And most of those jobs were ‘created’ by the birth-death model applied to small businesses. It is quite possible that no jobs at all were created.
[quote]rcsermas wrote:
This has been going on for awhile now. The true unemployment rate really has not changed too much over the past few years. The participation rate the BLS uses to determine the size of the labor force has just been steadily dropping.
When you spread the time frame out, you can see a rise starting in mid 60s peaking in Bush II - more or less the same as the working years of the Baby Boomers work period.
Maybe the employed number is going more toward its 59%??
[quote]rcsermas wrote:
This has been going on for awhile now. The true unemployment rate really has not changed too much over the past few years. The participation rate the BLS uses to determine the size of the labor force has just been steadily dropping.
When you spread the time frame out, you can see a rise starting in mid 60s peaking in Bush II - more or less the same as the working years of the Baby Boomers work period.
Maybe the employed number is going more toward its 59%??[/quote]
Possibly, but if you look at the same time period splitting out by gender, you find that participation rate for men has been more or less in constant decline since 1948 (as far back as the data goes), while the percentage for women has been steadily climbing until leveling out around 2000 and now starting to decrease. I think this would explain the climb starting in the 60s. In all likelihood the current dip is some combination of retiring boomers and people just giving up. I would lean more towards the latter though. When I have more time I’ll look at the data by age groups and report back.
Update:
Looking at the participation rates by 10-year age ranges, 55 to 64 and 65+ are actually INCREASING at a pretty good rate which would indicate that boomers in general are not retiring. Age groups 25 to 34, 35 to 44, and 45 to 54 are all pretty close to equal and have been on a very minor decline, while 18 to 24 has taken an absolute nose dive. Kind of ironic, since this is the age group that most supported Obama in 2008, and likely will again in this election.