Well, you stated related to claims that “You need to get to about 160,000 to see any significant growth in the economy or a stabilizing labor market.” That hasn’t happened ever so that statement is invalid. The statements on this thread that the employment situation is not improving are inaccurate as claims are actually below normal as defined by a long-run average.
I know that you are intelligent, but sometimes you are obtuse...
Well, you stated related to claims that “You need to get to about 160,000 to see any significant growth in the economy or a stabilizing labor market.” That hasn’t happened ever so that statement is invalid.
Statement isn't invalid. I described what the economy would do given certain parameters. For example, GDP growth at 8%, with certain amount of initial unemployment claims etc..
I could give all of the fixes for this economy in this post, but I won't. Most economist already know what would stimulate the economy, and give it significant sustained growth. Unfortunately, the Fed gov's % [consumption] of GDP is totally out of control. Politics are killing the economy, and DPI.
As I stated in my last post,...
The statements on this thread that the employment situation is not improving are inaccurate as claims are actually below normal as defined by a long-run average.
...the long run average is not misleading, but irrelevant in both our discussion, and as a metric to gauge economic activity (GDP over the long run).
Anyway,
The statements on this thread that the employment situation is not improving are inaccurate...
You are correct, but there is a caveat. It's call the Labor Participation Rate.
I enjoyed our banter.
5.56mm