Record 90.5 Million Out Of Labor Force As Half A Million Drop Out In One Month; Labor Force Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels
While the Establishment survey data was ugly due to both the miss and the prior downward revisions in the NFP print, the real action was in the Household survey, where we find that the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 516,000 in one month, which in turn increased the total number of people outside the labor force to a record 90.5 million Americans.
And what is even worse, the Labor Force Participation Rate declined from 63.4% to 63.2%: the is the lowest print since August 1978!
Whether or not this means the Fed will continue QE at this point is largely irrelevant: what is more relevant is that the Fed so far has failed miserably at its core mandate: to boost real employment.
Originally posted by utherpendragonMaybe our business community should send a few million more jobs to China and India. I'm sure that will help!😏
[b]Record 90.5 Million Out Of Labor Force As Half A Million Drop Out In One Month; Labor Force Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels
While the Establishment survey data was ugly due to both the miss and the prior downward revisions in the NFP print, the real action was in the Household survey, where we find that the number of people not in ...[text shortened]... evant is that the Fed so far has failed miserably at its core mandate: to boost real employment.[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonWhat can I say Uther. It's a world gone mad!
[b]Record 90.5 Million Out Of Labor Force As Half A Million Drop Out In One Month; Labor Force Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels
While the Establishment survey data was ugly due to both the miss and the prior downward revisions in the NFP print, the real action was in the Household survey, where we find that the number of people not in ...[text shortened]... evant is that the Fed so far has failed miserably at its core mandate: to boost real employment.[/b]
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe lack of productive, wage earning work is indeed cause for concern. I am concerned also about your statement, "what is more relevant is that the Fed so far has failed miserably at its core mandate: to boost real employment."
[b]Record 90.5 Million Out Of Labor Force As Half A Million Drop Out In One Month; Labor Force Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels
While the Establishment survey data was ugly due to both the miss and the prior downward revisions in the NFP print, the real action was in the Household survey, where we find that the number of people not in ...[text shortened]... evant is that the Fed so far has failed miserably at its core mandate: to boost real employment.[/b]
While during the Greenspan/Bernanke era that has been more or less assumed, I don't think that was on the minds of the proponents of the Fed back in 1913. Nor is it a good idea, as the pushing of easy credit, near zero interest, has many detrimental effects to a sound economy, besides the tendency to produce massive bubbles which eventually burst.
Note that despite the lousy jobs prospects for workers, the stock market continues to soar. We have a nation full of what David Stockman calls debt zombies, and a population which resembles the business counterparts, with more household debt than previous generations would have considered.
It is also the result of administration favoritism to crony capitalists who are greenies or otherwise FOO (Friends of Obama) who start businesses with no hope of eventual success, because they are buried so deep in easy debt, that earning more than the interest payments is highly unlikely.
Another possible factor is the amount and ease of welfare, making work somewhat stupid.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-trade
Originally posted by normbenignVery good points.
The lack of productive, wage earning work is indeed cause for concern. I am concerned also about your statement, "what is more relevant is that the Fed so far has failed miserably at its core mandate: to boost real employment."
While during the Greenspan/Bernanke era that has been more or less assumed, I don't think that was on the minds of the propon ...[text shortened]... g work somewhat stupid.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-trade
Originally posted by utherpendragonUnfortunately he missed one of the most important ones: the workforce is aging, so early retirement plays a bigger role than it did in the 70s.
Very good points.
Normbenign's point about "welfare" is blatantly false, which is obvious when comparing to other Western nations, some of which have both far more generous benefits and far higher employment rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_employment_rate
All of the countries with higher employment rates than the US, except for Russia, have vastly more generous welfare systems. Of course normbenign and yourself know this, but (perhaps because of old age) you have some trouble absorbing knowledge that contradicts predetermined notions of reality, even when I have pointed this out repeatedly.
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718No, its a world gone to China. 🙂
What can I say Uther. It's a world gone mad!
The truth is that with globalization, you can't expect to earn more than the Chinese for the same skills. So you either need to accept lower wages or improve your skills. Protectionism only lasts for a while then employers find a way around it because its uneconomical for them.
The crash of '08 made it easy for employers to shed high cost staff and then hire cheaper staff or mechanize later.
I believe Europe solves this problem by shifting towards a higher skilled work force.