There is only one way those numbers add up: 283,000 jobs were created in one month in America, but Americans are not getting jobs?
Obama must be proud of his workmanship.
Posted on 11/07/2015 11:15:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A strong employment report for October hasn't solved a conundrum that has persisted for five years: As jobs are created and the jobless rate falls, the number of Americans in the labor force keeps dropping.
The Labor Department reported Friday that, including revisions from August and September, hiring was up a brisk 283,000 - about double the meager pace of recent months.
Gains were widespread in industries, including business services, health care, retail, food services and even construction, suggesting a housing bounce. Average wages rose 0.35% to $25.20, indicating many workers got raises.
We'd love to see 12 months or more of this. Solid job gains accompanied by wage growth should be the norm in a recovery. But for six years now, progress on the jobs front has been herky-jerky. Every slice of good news seems to be followed by a slip back into the rut of slow growth and wage stagnation.
The government's latest estimate of just 1.5% growth in the third quarter and recent news of manufacturing hitting another skid should temper enthusiasm.
The predominant worry on Wall Street is that good news in the labor market means the Fed will raise interest rates before year-end. The two-year Treasury-bill yield on Friday reached its highest rate in more than five years at 2.3%, suggesting investors believe rates are on the rise.
While a rate hike is probably advisable, someone needs to remind Janet Yellen that more people working doesn't cause inflation.
Labor-force participation, meanwhile, shows no improvement. The number of those over the age of 18 who are working or looking for work remains at a 35-year low, and participation has fallen most for younger workers between 18 and 30.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearmarkets.com ...
We have almost 30% unemloyment and we are living the Great Depression with social programs.
There is only one way those numbers add up: 283,000 jobs were created in one month in America, but Americans are not getting jobs?
Obama must be proud of his workmanship.
Force the liberals to actually look at and argue with their own government's data.
All according to plan .............
(no, nothing has changed here)
And if the participation rate was the same as it was under Eisenhower, the unemployment rate would be negative.
All you’re saying is the if there were more unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher. But the fact is that fewer people want to work, and that’s why participaton is down.
No. I don't think you understand.
Under Eisenhower, the Labor Force Participation rate was actually much lower than now. That was before the mass influx of women into the American labor force which began around the tail end of the Eisenhower administration.
The Labor Force participation rate simply takes the size of the labor force and tells us how many of those people are actually participating (working). 
SO...
our current labor force is about 157 million people.
62.7% of them are working.
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 |
| 2006 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.3 | 66.4 |
| 2007 | 66.4 | 66.3 | 66.2 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 66.0 | 66.0 |
| 2008 | 66.2 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.9 | 65.8 |
| 2009 | 65.7 | 65.8 | 65.6 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.5 | 65.4 | 65.1 | 65.0 | 65.0 | 64.6 |
| 2010 | 64.8 | 64.9 | 64.9 | 65.2 | 64.9 | 64.6 | 64.6 | 64.7 | 64.6 | 64.4 | 64.6 | 64.3 |
| 2011 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.1 | 64.0 | 64.0 | 64.1 | 64.2 | 64.1 | 64.1 | 64.0 |
| 2012 | 63.7 | 63.8 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 63.8 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 63.5 | 63.6 | 63.7 | 63.6 | 63.7 |
| 2013 | 63.7 | 63.5 | 63.3 | 63.4 | 63.4 | 63.4 | 63.3 | 63.2 | 63.2 | 62.8 | 63.0 | 62.8 |
| 2014 | 63.0 | 63.0 | 63.2 | 62.8 | 62.8 | 62.8 | 62.9 | 62.9 | 62.7 | 62.8 | 62.9 | 62.7 |
| 2015 | 62.9 | 62.8 | 62.7 | 62.8 | 62.9 | 62.6 | 62.6 | 62.6 | 62.4 | 62.4 |
It seems you don’t understand. The Labor Force is Employed plus Unemployed, and the Labor Force Participation Rate is the Labor Force as a percent of the Adult Civilian non-institutional population.
In short, the participation rate is the percent of the population that is doing something about work.
The participation rate has been going down since 2015...mostly due to an aging population, but also due to more students and more disabled and more stay-home spouses.
When you say “if the participation rate were as high as it was under President X then the UE rate would by Y” then what you’re saying is that if there were more people in the labor force looking for work (unemployed) then the unemployment rate would be higher. But the fact is that not as many people want to work.
And the current labor force is 157,028,000. 149,120,000 are employed and 7,908,000 are unemployed, giving an unemployment rate of 5.0%. The adult civilian non-institutional population is 251,541,000 giving us a labor force participation rate of 157,028,000/251,541,000 = 62.4%
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
