Economist: Unemployment low because labor participation is low

[Revmitchell]

University of Maryland economist Peter Morici argued that the unemployment rate “is really low right now because of a low adult participation rate” on Thursday’s “MSNBC Live.”
Further he argued that unemployment would be much higher if the participation rate was where it was when President Barack Obama took office.
“If we were at the level [of labor force participation] that we were at when Mr. Bush took office, it would be 12% unemployment, and when Mr. Obama took office, 10,” Morici said.


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...oyment-Low-Because-Labor-Participation-Is-Low

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

AAAAAAAAaaaannnnnddddd ....

Cue ITL!!!!

:laugh:

 

[InTheLight]

AAAAAAAAaaaannnnnddddd ....

Cue ITL!!!!

:laugh:

Yes, cue ITL. And I'm sure the two of you will like the source.

June's unemployment rate decline was the result of jobless workers finding positions, not because of people quitting the job hunt. The labor force participation rate -- the share of Americans with jobs or looking for work -- remained steady at 62.8 percent. Labor force participation remains near the lowest level since the late 1970s, reflecting both long-term demographic changes and cyclical weakness in the labor market.

Underemployment also decreased in June. The U-6 unemployment rate, a measure that includes not only the unemployed but also those forced into part-time work and people working intermittently, ticked down from 12.2 to 12.1 percent. Over the past year, the U-6 rate has declined by almost two full percentage points.

The household survey also indicated improvement in long-term unemployment, which at roughly a third of total unemployment remains unusually high. The number of those out of work for 27 weeks or longer fell by 293,000, to 3.1 million. Over the past year, the ranks of the long-term jobless have fallen by 1.2 million.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/junes...ig-concern-about-the-recovery/article/2550465

 

[InTheLight]

Fewer U.S. job seekers give up the search

Fewer Americans are giving up on the job search because they’re discouraged by their prospects.

The fine print of Thursday’s cheery U.S. jobs report revealed that the number of people who are not looking for a job because they don’t think they can find one has fallen by 351,000 in the past 12 months.

Those who aren’t actively looking for a job don’t count as unemployed in government labor statistics. As the unemployment rate has fallen, a common concern has been that the number misrepresents the reality of the job market, because the ranks of discouraged workers rose as high as 1.3 million in 2010. That figure has fallen to 676,000.

http://www.startribune.com/business/265776341.html

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

And I'm sure you'll like this one, too, posted last night on The WaPo website and on the streets in print today.

Washington Post: More Americans are stuck in part-time workhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...efaa72-f7e7-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...efaa72-f7e7-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

In the new landscape of the American labor market, jobs are easier to come by but hours remain in short supply.

New government data released Thursday showed the economy added 288,000 jobs in June — the fifth straight month gains have topped the critical benchmark of 200,000. The unemployment rate fell to 6.1 percent, down more than a percentage point over the past year.

But there’s a gnawing fear among some economists that the improving data provides false comfort. The number of people in part-time jobs jumped by more than 1 million in June to 27 million, according to the government’s data, making it one of the corners of the labor market that has been slowest to heal. That has led to worries that the workforce may be becoming permanently polarized, with part-timers stuck on one side and full-time workers on the other. [Empasis added]

“What we’re seeing is a growing trend of low-quality part-time jobs,” said Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Work Week Initiative, which is pushing for labor reforms. “It’s creating this massive unproductive workforce that is unable to productively engage in their lives or in the economy.”

Then there's this from a report earlier in the year:

National Employment Law Project: Tracking the Low-Wage Recovery: Industry Employment & Wageshttp://www.nelp.org/page/content/lowwagerecovery2014/http://www.nelp.org/page/content/lowwagerecovery2014/

We find that during the labor market downturn (measured from January 2008 to February 2010), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage and higher-wage industries. By contrast, during the recovery (measured from February 2010 to February 2014), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage industries. Specifically:

• Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
• Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
• Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth.

Today, there are nearly two million fewer jobs in mid- and higher-wage industries than there were before the recession took hold, while there are 1.85 million more jobs in lower-wage industries.

Service-providing industries such as food services and drinking places, administrative and support services, and retail trade have led private sector job growth during the recovery. These industries, which pay relatively low wages, accounted for 39 percent of the private sector employment increase over the past four years.

Note, this report came out in April. Full-time jobs that do exist pay far less than the ones lost in the recession. Add the one million part-time jobs added in June, and you have a crisis on your hands. People are being forced to migrate from full-time to part-time work, and it won't pay the bills. This is a recipe for another economic disaster of far greater proportions than 2008-09.

Stick a fork in it, ITL. You're done. Your arguments are nothing but hot air and Kool-Aid.