Jobless Rate in U.S. Falls Below 6% as Hiring Picks Up

Nytimes

Five years after the nation emerged from a crippling recession, the economy finally appears to be on track for a more robust recovery, bolstered by strong recent job gains and an unemployment rate that dipped below 6 percent in September for the first time since the summer of 2008.

Can this be real?

Is this a result of the banks pumping money into the economy?

Why are teachers still fighting for their pensions?

Have exports increased?

What's causing this "growth" if it's real? Is the rest of the world buying more products from the U.S.?

Jobless Rate in U.S. Falls Below 6% as Hiring Picks Up

Nice title.

It should read, however, "Jobless Rate in U.S. Falls Below 6% because there is an election next month."

a reply to: onequestion

No. Look at workforce participation numbers to get a better feel for who is actually working. The way they determine unemployment numbers has too many variables to be an objective measurement.

Its the US's $10 per hour recovery.

originally posted by: beezzer

Jobless Rate in U.S. Falls Below 6% as Hiring Picks Up

Nice title.

It should read, however, "Jobless Rate in U.S. Falls Below 6% because there is an election next month."

I know I just don't buy it but how would I know to be honest I'm relying on this thread to provide me with some decent info.

Our economy can't grow if we I port more then we export and we're still experiencing inflation high rates of inflation. Just not seeing it.

a reply to: eManym

This means there's more temp to hire jobs then ever that's what it means.

a reply to: onequestion

That is the U3 tabulation, the U6 tabulation (real unemployment) has not been tabulated since 1989 when the U3 started being the official rate. The U6 rate is more like 14.3 and hasn't been below 14% 2009.

To better understand unemployment

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: onequestion

No. Look at workforce participation numbers to get a better feel for who is actually working. The way they determine unemployment numbers has too many variables to be an objective measurement.

Do you have a link?

a reply to: onequestion

BLS Labor Force Participation

You should check out the participation rate among young minority males. It is so inspiring right now.

a reply to: Nechash
Am I right by seeing that as a decline in labor?

a reply to: onequestion

The more accurate number is probably more like 15 - 20% unemployment because regular unemployment doesn't count those who no longer are looking for a job.

a reply to: onequestion

Yeah, and when you couple with this the fact that more than ever people are foregoing retirement, it is a very bad sign. We have a lower participation rate than Australia and their minimum wage is almost twice ours.

I clicked on an article today that was boasting about how:

The U.S. added 248,000 jobs last month, far above the estimate of 215,000. The unemployment rate also fell below 6% for the first time since 2008, to 5.9%.

That's right. 248,000 jobs added last month. 248,000

Hiring Rebounds

And they estimated 215,000 jobs were going to be added! That's nothing!

So as they're boasting about the rebound, this is what's happening in the country:

And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!

92.6 million people are not in the labor force.

Labor Participation Rate Lowest In 36 Years

Yes, partisan source, skewed numbers, out to penalize the politicians, sensationalism. Well, can't be denied, 248,000 people found jobs, while 315,000 lost their jobs making 92.6 million people the total not in labor force.

I know our company can't hire fast enough here in Atlanta. New home building is way up. Mall and other projects abandoned 6 years ago are startiing back up. So anecdotally, simply based on observation, I'd say things are looking up a bit.

a reply to: onequestion

If you want to know for sure whether you are talking to a real leftist or not, get them to talk about unemployment and see if they even mention the words full-employment or a living wage. If neither of those terms come out of their mouth, they are a shill for the status quo. I know I just made the no true scotsman fallacy, but I don't care. I've made my line in the sand and I'll stand by that. The only situation wherein unemployment would be a blessing is where people are in school or they have a guaranteed level of welfare to keep them at least in subsistence.

a reply to: Nechash

Can't disagree with that.

We obviously need to rethink economy and governance I stand by that. We're evolving either we get with the program and work together or we fall back I to the dark ages.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Yea Georgia is growing apparently. I heard a tile setter I was working with talk about it.

a reply to: beezzer

Sounds more realistic to me beezer. Where I'm at its a lot higher and the jobs here don't pay more then 10-12$ an hour except the 3 surviving manufacturing plants and the unions which have 3-4 years wait to get I to.

Some people don't get it.

A gain in jobs is too vague a term to go off of to celebrate or to tell the masses to be quiet.

What you are looking for is a NET GAIN in jobs and quality of life.

If unemployment rates drop to 6% that doesn't mean that all the other 94% have jobs. Unemployment rate purposefully understates the issue in how it counts unemployed.

a reply to: onequestion

Well taking into consideration mid term elections around the corner, I will say is government propaganda, see my state is not better today that it was when the 2008 market crash, we are still on the top states with highest unemployment.

So no, I don't believe it.