He is screwing this up royally. I understand the point he's trying to make, but he's not making it. For several months now, whenever he talks about the unemployment rate and the labor participation rate, he get it all balled up.
The unemployment rate is said to be dropping because so many people are no longer actively looking for work. It's no more complicated than that. If, this month, 1 million new jobs are advertised but none are filled because qualified people aren't available in the towns they're offered, the unemployment rate won't change.
No jobs have been created -- they're just potential jobs.
He goes way off on these long tangents about the number of jobs and he's just confused. He mentioned that he's been told a number of times that he's got it wrong, but, evidently, he's not listening. It's too bad because he's a crucial resource for us.
I heard that and I was with the caller, I don’t get it. Rush was trying to make the unemployment number relate to the number of jobs.
The unemployment rate is the percentage of people willing & able to work but unable to do so.
The number of actual jobs has nothing to do with the unemployment rate other than if there are available jobs, you would expect the unemployed to fill them, unless they have taken themselves out of the pool of willing & able because they are busy waiting for their government handout.
 |
The question turns on why folks have dropped out of the labor force. Is it normal demographic aging? Or have they given up? There is an argument to be made that some of the drop is due to the aging population. But how much?
It's quite clear that, if the same number of folks were looking for work now as were looking when the Won took office, the official unemployment rate would be double digits.