Unemployment claims fall in new sign of gradual labor recovery

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by The_Graygator

This is what libs accept.

Under Bush, it was below 5% before the Dems took over congress in 2007.

The libs can come here and post the OA's propaganda of spin-doctored and cooked employment books all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that we had 149 million people working when Obama took office and we now have less than 138 million working, with a total of 8.3 less jobs available in the work force, which means an even more shrunken economy.

There is NO recovery or "economic improvemnt".

It is a lie, BS, a farce, pure fiction, and there is ZERO to support that claim. They can repeat it to the heavens all they want until they believe it (which is what I did when I was a lib), but it's still pure leftist, politically-driven propaganda.

Quality fact-free post right from Limbaugh.com or similar.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Well, its been trending downward for decades. Are we talking about from one-month to another or for the last few decades?

The basic answer is: a) employers don't need as many people to do work and b) people can find other ways to get by without being formally in the work force.

In addition, demographics and health care improvements have increased the number of people who have voluntarily exited the labor force due to retirement.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

In addition, demographics and health care improvements have increased the number of people who have voluntarily exited the labor force due to retirement.

I think that was implied in b), but that is certainly correct.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Well, its been trending downward for decades. Are we talking about from one-month to another or for the last few decades?

The basic answer is: a) employers don't need as many people to do work and b) people can find other ways to get by without being formally in the work force.

I would say it's been trending down for about a decade maybe a little more. To say decades would be an exaggeration. Right now it's the lowest since the first term of the Reagan administration.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I would say it's been trending down for about a decade maybe a little more. To say decades would be an exaggeration. Right now it's the lowest since the first term of the Reagan administration.

Its been going downward since the 90s, spiking in the recessions. Thats "decades." Though it doesnt seem that long, and I could see where it could be seen as an exageration. I'll be more specific in the future.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Its been going downward since the 90s, spiking in the recessions. Thats "decades." Though it doesnt seem that long, and I could see where it could be seen as an exageration. I'll be more specific in the future.

What your saying is not accurate

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

What your saying is not accurate

[IMG]bp.blogspot.com/--_HSroA9zRA/UHMH_F93FQI/AAAAAAAAScA/foOcL8NHa_E/s1600/PR1.jpg[/IMG]

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Here's the BLS graph.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Here's the BLS graph.

OK, but again it's not decades

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Sort of a semantics argument.

It's been falling for more than a decade. As was mentioned, demographics is playing a big role in that, too.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

OK, but again it's not decades

Maybe we're defining trending differently (I see a big spike down in 90, and not much upward trajectory after that), but I'll happilly concede the point. We'll say decade then. There's been a steady drop since the late 90s.

[dangolegators]

There are 2 things going on here with regards to the labor force participation rate. Obviously the recession has been a factor. But demographics are a factor too. Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of people in the 55-64 age group grew by about 50%. That's a far higher growth rate than any other 10-year age group, and that is the group that is currently retiring. So the baby boomers are playing a big role in the reduced labor force participation rate.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

There are 2 things going on here with regards to the labor force participation rate. Obviously the recession has been a factor. But demographics are a factor too. Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of people in the 55-64 age group grew by about 50%. That's a far higher growth rate than any other 10-year age group, and that is the group that is currently retiring. So the baby boomers are playing a big role in the reduced labor force participation rate.

That is exactly correct

[108]

we will see how the sequester effects job numbers

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 108

we will see how the sequester effects job numbers

Well we know, no matter what that will get the blame. The President has already served up that softball, so the narrative has been set for state sponsored media.

[108]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Well we know, no matter what that will get the blame. The President has already served up that softball, so the narrative has been set for state sponsored media.

it doesn't take an economist to know that a decrease in spending will directly affect jobs

that isn't to say we shouldn't decrease spending, but people should understand the consequences

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 108

it doesn't take an economist to know that a decrease in spending will directly affect jobs

that isn't to say we shouldn't decrease spending, but people should understand the consequences

Sure some gov jobs but lets really take a look at what the sequester is and that is a 2% cut in the increase in spending. Many of these cuts a military based so you should be happy about that.

[108]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Sure some gov jobs but lets really take a look at what the sequester is and that is a 2% cut in the increase in spending. Many of these cuts a military based so you should be happy about that.

everyday military folks or the MIC?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 108

everyday military folks or the MIC?

I would imagine both

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequester_(2013)

[edit] Defense spending

CBO projected in February 2013 that under the sequester and Budget Control Act caps:
Defense spending outlays (including "overseas contingency operations" for Iraq and Afghanistan) will be reduced from $670.3 billion in 2012 to approximately $627.6 billion in 2013, a decrease of $42.7 billion or 6.4%. Defense spending will fall again to $593.4 billion in 2014, a decrease of $34.2 billion or 5.5%.
Defense spending will rise gradually from $593 billion in 2014 to $714 billion by 2023, an annual growth rate of 2.1% during the 2014 to 2023 period and 0.6% for the 2012-2023 period. The 2.1% growth rate approximates CBO's projected rate of inflation and is well below the annual spending growth rate of 7.1% from 2000-2012.
Defense spending will fall steadily from 4.3% GDP in 2012 to 2.8% GDP by 2023. Defense spending averaged 4.0% GDP from 1990 to 2012, ranging from 3.0% GDP to 5.2% GDP.[1]

[rivergator]

Times-Union had a brief about building permits for new homes is at the highest level since 2008.

[108]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I would imagine both

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequester_(2013)

good that the defense budget is lowered, bad that no doubt it will mostly effect people at the bottom

the average everyday military personal who is consumer whose majority of income goes right back into the economy