Unemployment lowest in 7 years!

+1. His approval rating should be 90%+ now (great economy, marriage freedom, etc.)

The economy is so great that many people are putting off retiring or are rejoining the labor force at age 55+.

..and only 94M out of the labor force. No need to confuse things with facts & reason though.

carry on..

And don't forget the underemployed. You know - those with college degrees still DJing.

LEONARD SMALLS wrote:

..and only 94M out of the labor force. No need to confuse things with facts & reason though.

carry on..

94 million people out of the labor force is not a bad thing...means that they have enough income from other sources so that they don't have to work...a spouse with a good job, retirement income, stocks that have done well that they draw from, etc. It's all the Right can do to try to put a wet blanket on the very good situation that continues to improve. The GOP should just cry uncle now and hope for an economic downturn during Hillary's presidency so that they have a shot in 2020.

Saw a guy (mid 20s) with his girlfriend/wife standing on a corner the other day with a cardboard sign (of course) that said, "Family in need. Anything will help." Well, what a bunch of crap that is, especially today. Every day I'm at Kroger they blast an announcement that the Kroger warehouse is hiring and they start at $13/hour with benefits -- that's $26,000 a year if working 50 weeks. Even if she then worked at Target, she can make $10/hour there, so that's another $20,000 a year, so $46,000 a year between the two of them...not horrible for two people who likely don't have college degrees. They can easily go rent a halfway decent apartment and live on that. Turnover at many of those places is high, so if they stay a while they move up. Holding a sign on the corner means they want quick money for drugs or smokes or alcohol. Ridiculous.

94M out of the workforce is a good thing? I guess you thought $4 gas was a good thing, too.The White House always releases these low number of unemployment (which is a lie to the American public) or jobs the previous month found to big fanfare, then quietly revise those numbers on a Friday at 5. Fpole, I know you are not the typical, stupid democrat voter so you must be on the other end of that spectrum and think you are one of those "elites" who need to the democrat low-lifes in line by giving them obamaphones and welfare.

The last scenario sounds like the typical democrat voter.

Number of people eligible for unemployment benefits hits seven year low.

I fixed the sentence for you.

I would argue that 94 million people are out of the workforce due to government subsidies of various types. Why not just borrow the money now and let future generations worry about how we are going to pay that money back? Never underestimate the ability of the government printing press to obfuscate the truth.

We have so many new people here at work I can barely keep track. Some new positions, plus we've had a dozen or so retirements this year, and those have been filled. These are good jobs, too. Despite the continued Republican gloom and doom, I don't know anyone who is without a good job who WANTS to work.

Stagger Lee wrote:

[I would argue that 94 million people are out of the workforce due to government subsidies of various types. Why not just borrow the money now and let future generations worry about how we are going to pay that money back? Never underestimate the ability of the government printing press to obfuscate the truth.

30 million food stamp recipients have jobs.

Food stamps are taxpayer subsidies to Walmart, McDonald's and other minimum wage employers.

Doubling the minimum wage would save the taxpayer $10s of millions and put the onus on employers to pay the costs of feeding low income Americans.

LEONARD SMALLS wrote:

..and only 94M out of the labor force. No need to confuse things with facts & reason though.

carry on..

5.3% unemployment is as much a fact as 94M out of the labor force. No need to confuse yourself by using your brain, though.

Randy Oldman wrote:

Stagger Lee wrote:

[I would argue that 94 million people are out of the workforce due to government subsidies of various types. Why not just borrow the money now and let future generations worry about how we are going to pay that money back? Never underestimate the ability of the government printing press to obfuscate the truth.

30 million food stamp recipients have jobs.

Food stamps are taxpayer subsidies to Walmart, McDonald's and other minimum wage employers.

Doubling the minimum wage would save the taxpayer $10s of millions and put the onus on employers to pay the costs of feeding low income Americans.

Doubling the minimum wage would lower corporate profit, thus increasing the cost of goods. Just because income is raised doesn't mean the actual cost of business decreases. Also: imagine you are a worker who has busted your ass for two years to rise from minimum wage to $9.50/hr. Suddenly, the gov't raises minimum wage to $11/hr. Sure, you've made more money but then you're right back on par with a zit-faced, high school kid.

What makes these subsidies you speak of possible? Without government, corporate lobbyists wouldn't be able to access the loopholes legislation creates. Let's also not forget that corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. Once again, corporations can use the levers of government to leverage their position. Government is the problem. Without it, there are no loopholes to exploit.

94M is not in in itself a good or bad thing. Like any other economic indicator (such as the unemployment rate), it should be viewed as a part of the overall picture of economic health.

Seriously? This is BASIC polling/statistics. Overtime more information is gathered and the precision level is increased. I know this may shock you, but the revisions can be either an increase or a decrease in previously reported numbers. Each month's jobs report is inclusive of all of these prior months revision, so they aren't exactly swept under the rug.

Yes - the lazy-man's argument of breaking the opposition into a very limited number of categories (in this case lazy idiots and controlling elites). Can't say I expected more from UI.

Randy Oldman wrote:

30 million food stamp recipients have jobs.

Food stamps are taxpayer subsidies to Walmart, McDonald's and other minimum wage employers.

Doubling the minimum wage would save the taxpayer $10s of millions and put the onus on employers to pay the costs of feeding low income Americans.

Walmart isn't a minimum wage employer, though you NYC libs banished it, so your ignorance is forgiven. Many small businesses are minimum wage employers however.

By the way, why do liberals in NYC/SF/Portland/Seattle hate Walmart, yet have a Starbucks for every 4.3 people? What is it about paying higher wages than Starbucks and selling necessary goods at affordable prices (rather than $5 for a flat white) that they just hate with a passion?

We're maintaining a nice positive trend.

The doom after the 2008 collapse and subsequent recovery just never happened.

Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:

By the way, why do liberals in NYC/SF/Portland/Seattle hate Walmart, yet have a Starbucks for every 4.3 people? What is it about paying higher wages than Starbucks and selling necessary goods at affordable prices (rather than $5 for a flat white) that they just hate with a passion?

Unions.

Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:

By the way, why do liberals in NYC/SF/Portland/Seattle hate Walmart, yet have a Starbucks for every 4.3 people? What is it about paying higher wages than Starbucks and selling necessary goods at affordable prices (rather than $5 for a flat white) that they just hate with a passion?

fair questions

1) they view starbucks as a temporary career for young people. In NYC 95% of starbucks workers appear to be in their 20s. I think starbucks employees skew older elsewhere, but that is out of sight out of mind

2) selling coffee is viewed as a more pleasant job than working in a big box store - Starbucks sells a luxury product - it isn't viewed as trying to sell cheap stuff to people in unpleasant, badly lit boxes.

3) NYCers don't quite understant the appeal of walmart at all - we pay way more than everyone else for things and sort of understand that is the cost of living in a nice place. Trying to buy cheap stuff like what walmart sells...just doesn't really crack into the minds of NYCers with money.

but fair points. I have to remember that analogy.

Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:

By the way, why do liberals in NYC/SF/Portland/Seattle hate Walmart, yet have a Starbucks for every 4.3 people? What is it about paying higher wages than Starbucks and selling necessary goods at affordable prices (rather than $5 for a flat white) that they just hate with a passion?

It reminds them of reality.