Unemployment drops to 8.3 percent

Don't blame me. I voted for Starman.

 

Dow at four-year high, NASDAQ at 11-year high.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm

 

Fox News headline: Dow Finally Recovers From Obama Election in 2008; NASDAQ Bump Recalls Optimism Of Bush Inauguration

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/implied-unemployment-rate-rises-115-spread-propaganda-number-surges-30-year-high

 

Ballpark effects.

 

The problem with looking at labor force participation at its historic levels -- roughly 65% -- is that labor force participation has been expected to start dropping slowly anyway, even if there was no recession, thanks to the retirement of Baby Boomers and the smaller population of workers replacing them.

Now, we could go back and forth about how much of a drop that should have been, how many Baby Boomers will put off retirement because of lost 401(k)s and the like, and where the ideal participation rate should be, but the reality is that no one really knows. It's been in the 65% neighborhood for a long time now, but we had a major recession right as a huge generation was starting to reach retirement age. So all of it is pretty skewed.

 

http://blog.american.com/2012/02/why-the-official-8-3-percent-unemployment-rate-is-a-phony-number-and-what-it-means-for-obamas-reelection/

 

The difference between 63.7 and 65 percent is about 3 million people in the workforce. That is a major change.

 

The metrics for unemployment have been in question for more than a generation.

harpers.org/archive/2008/05/0082023

 

One of my bosses got fired the other day. Eight years with the company and he got fired for something they make up whenever they don't wanna give us the real reason (misuse of a corporate card).

The guy was an asshole, but I don't wish unemployment on anyone. Nothing sucks more than looking for work.

 

Gannett just announced new job cuts and furloughs with the recent unemployment numbers!!

I've always been skeptical about all these stories about unemployment dropping, things just don't seem to be getting much better (maybe it's because I'm one of the few still working in the newspaper industry). But my question has always been, how much are these 200,000+ new jobs pay in contrast to the amount lost.

Adding 200,000 minimum wage jobs a year after 125,000 $50,000/year jobs got cut will make things look like jobs growth is happening, but it won't do much else.

 

The unemployment numbers are bullshit and have been for 40 years. Under the standards for unemployment in effect during the Great Depression (which peaked at 25% in 1933), we would currently be in the mid-to-high teens (after approaching 20% in 2009).

There has been some slight improvement but not nearly enough.