http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/unempl...le/2623459

Quote:Total continuing claims for unemployment benefits ran at the lowest level in 28 years at the beginning of May, the Department of Labor reported Thursday morning in a new sign that the jobs market is still improving.

The total number of unemployed workers receiving benefits fell to 1.9 million, the agency said, the lowest such mark since November of 1988, when the workforce was much smaller.
.....
The encouraging news from jobless claims is just one of the bright signs related to jobs.

At 4.4 percent in April, the unemployment rate is already below where Federal Reserve officials thought it could sustainably go if the economy were fully healthy.

LOL
Everybody knows unemployment is at 40%. Fake news.

(05-19-2017 03:57 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/unempl...le/2623459

Quote:Total continuing claims for unemployment benefits ran at the lowest level in 28 years at the beginning of May, the Department of Labor reported Thursday morning in a new sign that the jobs market is still improving.

The total number of unemployed workers receiving benefits fell to 1.9 million, the agency said, the lowest such mark since November of 1988, when the workforce was much smaller.
.....
The encouraging news from jobless claims is just one of the bright signs related to jobs.

At 4.4 percent in April, the unemployment rate is already below where Federal Reserve officials thought it could sustainably go if the economy were fully healthy.

Key questions:
What about labor force participation?
What about wages?

We've had a remarkably slow, empty recovery since January 2009.

I thought it is because people stopped looking for work.

(05-19-2017 03:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 03:57 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/unempl...le/2623459

Quote:Total continuing claims for unemployment benefits ran at the lowest level in 28 years at the beginning of May, the Department of Labor reported Thursday morning in a new sign that the jobs market is still improving.

The total number of unemployed workers receiving benefits fell to 1.9 million, the agency said, the lowest such mark since November of 1988, when the workforce was much smaller.
.....
The encouraging news from jobless claims is just one of the bright signs related to jobs.

At 4.4 percent in April, the unemployment rate is already below where Federal Reserve officials thought it could sustainably go if the economy were fully healthy.

Key questions:
What about labor force participation?
What about wages?

We've had a remarkably slow, empty recovery since January 2009.

Yeah, we all laughed when this number was trotted out during the Obama presidency, so I don't put much (if any) stock in this number without knowing what Bullet pointed out.

We called this "fake news" before the term was used during the Obama years - because it was. It's all but meaningless now....

(05-20-2017 07:36 AM)Crebman Wrote:  Yeah, we all laughed when this number was trotted out during the Obama presidency, so I don't put much (if any) stock in this number without knowing what Bullet pointed out.

We called this "fake news" before the term was used during the Obama years - because it was. It's all but meaningless now....

True but all the pathetic progressive shrills trotted the Obama era unemployment reports as evidence for the success of his economic policies, so a little "rub their noses" posts can be cathartic.

Forgive me for calling fabrics on unemployment figures. They have always been wrong.

Libturds are butthurt because the employment numbers are better under Trump than they were under Obama, no matter which numbers you use; the fake ones or the real ones.

MUH MAGIC WAND

(05-20-2017 07:53 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 07:36 AM)Crebman Wrote:  Yeah, we all laughed when this number was trotted out during the Obama presidency, so I don't put much (if any) stock in this number without knowing what Bullet pointed out.

We called this "fake news" before the term was used during the Obama years - because it was. It's all but meaningless now....

True but all the pathetic progressive shrills trotted the Obama era unemployment reports as evidence for the success of his economic policies, so a little "rub their noses" posts can be cathartic.

Oh yeah. Always fun to rub their noses in it......

(05-20-2017 09:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Libturds are butthurt because the employment numbers are better under Trump than they were under Obama, no matter which numbers you use; the fake ones or the real ones.

MUH MAGIC WAND

So that mean the real unemployment rate must be 14%?

MUH HYPOCRITE.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-769414.html

(05-21-2017 02:36 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 09:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Libturds are butthurt because the employment numbers are better under Trump than they were under Obama, no matter which numbers you use; the fake ones or the real ones.

MUH MAGIC WAND

So that mean the real unemployment rate must be 14%?

MUH HYPOCRITE.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-769414.html

Could be, down from the 18% Trump inherited under Obama.

Now, here's a snowcone to shove up your backside to ease the pain of your butthurt.

(05-21-2017 10:21 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 02:36 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 09:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Libturds are butthurt because the employment numbers are better under Trump than they were under Obama, no matter which numbers you use; the fake ones or the real ones.

MUH MAGIC WAND

So that mean the real unemployment rate must be 14%?

MUH HYPOCRITE.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-769414.html

Could be, down from the 18% Trump inherited under Obama.

Now, here's a snowcone to shove up your backside to ease the pain of your butthurt.

1st quarter GDP. 0.7%.
#winning

(05-20-2017 09:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Libturds are butthurt because the employment numbers are better under Trump than they were under Obama, no matter which numbers you use; the fake ones or the real ones.

MUH MAGIC WAND

that's my view as well.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(05-22-2017 07:39 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 10:21 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 02:36 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 09:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Libturds are butthurt because the employment numbers are better under Trump than they were under Obama, no matter which numbers you use; the fake ones or the real ones.

MUH MAGIC WAND

So that mean the real unemployment rate must be 14%?

MUH HYPOCRITE.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-769414.html

Could be, down from the 18% Trump inherited under Obama.

Now, here's a snowcone to shove up your backside to ease the pain of your butthurt.

1st quarter GDP. 0.7%.
#winning

Yep, sounds like Trump stepped in just in time to prevent Obamas debacle from being worse.

(05-22-2017 07:46 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 09:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Libturds are butthurt because the employment numbers are better under Trump than they were under Obama, no matter which numbers you use; the fake ones or the real ones.

MUH MAGIC WAND

that's my view as well.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yep, any measurement you want to use - better numbers now........and no, it wasn't because Obama and the Democrats implemented a bunch of policies to spur economic growth. Any growth that occurred during the Obama years was in spite of' not because of anything Obama and friends did.....

(05-19-2017 03:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  Key questions:
What about labor force participation?
What about wages?

We've had a remarkably slow, empty recovery since January 2009.

I'm with bullet on this one.. I'm not gonna say this is a good think til the labor force numbers are out there.

so Trump is doing better than oblunder at being President? #Winning!

(05-22-2017 08:59 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  so Trump is doing better than oblunder at being President? #Winning!

Trump fans are like Bama fans. They claim about 30 championships, but most of them aren't real.

(05-22-2017 09:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

Code:

Year    Jan    Feb    Mar    Apr    May    Jun    Jul    Aug    Sep    Oct    Nov    Dec
2007    66.4    66.3    66.2    65.9    66.0    66.0    66.0    65.8    66.0    65.8    66.0    66.0
2008    66.2    66.0    66.1    65.9    66.1    66.1    66.1    66.1    66.0    66.0    65.9    65.8
2009    65.7    65.8    65.6    65.7    65.7    65.7    65.5    65.4    65.1    65.0    65.0    64.6
2010    64.8    64.9    64.9    65.2    64.9    64.6    64.6    64.7    64.6    64.4    64.6    64.3
2011    64.2    64.1    64.2    64.2    64.1    64.0    64.0    64.1    64.2    64.1    64.1    64.0
2012    63.7    63.8    63.8    63.7    63.7    63.8    63.7    63.5    63.6    63.8    63.6    63.7
2013    63.6    63.4    63.3    63.4    63.4    63.4    63.3    63.3    63.3    62.8    63.0    62.9
2014    62.9    62.9    63.1    62.8    62.8    62.8    62.9    62.9    62.8    62.9    62.9    62.7
2015    62.9    62.7    62.7    62.8    62.9    62.6    62.6    62.6    62.4    62.5    62.5    62.7
2016    62.7    62.9    63.0    62.8    62.6    62.7    62.8    62.8    62.9    62.8    62.6    62.7
2017    62.9    63.0    63.0    62.9

Sorry I wasn't clear, but this is the labor participation rates over the past 10 years or so. Since 2014, the participation rate has been very stable - but significantly lower than in 2009. Based on this, the unemployment rate data from Jan 2014 thru March of 2017 should be meaningful since the participation rate has been "standardized" over this time frame.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000