[TomGuy]

IOW, to get back to the times of near full employment, even 350,000 is too high.

Many months ago, Stuart Varney said on FoxNews that 200k new jobs per week would be required to just to get to the 'break even' point.

That 350k is nothing but a WAG to make the UE number look less ominous.

[xzins]

You are so right, and I remember Varney saying that.

And the number aligns with the full employment math. If 1.2 million new jobs a year is a necessity, then that comes out to about 100,000 new jobs every month.

If full employment is a turn-over of 250,000 a week, then the max regular turnover could be only about 275,000 given the 25,000 new jobs each week. That would absorb first-time entries to the jobs market.

The 400,000 number is pure fiction, and it is in no way aligned with the near full-employment numbers of 250,000 of Clinton and GW Bush.

[CGalen]

“Many months ago, Stuart Varney said on FoxNews that 200k new jobs per week would be required to just to get to the ‘break even’ point.”

The number of new jobs needed each month has to be more than the total number of new (legal and illegal) immigrants coming into the country, plus the number of births over deaths, just in order to stay even at the dismal place which we are at.

If our population increases by 2 1/2 million each year (200,000 new jobs per month) , then creating 2 1/2 million new jobs are needed just to tread water.