Skip to comments.Record 89,304,000 Americans 'Not in Labor Force' -- 296,000 Fewer Employed Since January
Posted on 03/08/2013 9:36:20 AM PST by george76Edited on 03/08/2013 9:37:07 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The number of Americans designated as "not in the labor force" in February was 89,304,000, a record high, up from 89,008,000 in January, according to the Department of Labor. This means that the number of Americans not in the labor force increased 296,000 between January and February.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Down 7.000 more this week but hey, the percentage of unemployed continues to go down. In 1984 doublespeak, that’s a recovery.
The economy added a whopping 446,000 part-time jobs. Thus, the economy shed 276,000 full-time jobs. Those part-time jobs were supposedly “on purpose”
Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/jobs-236000-unemployment-rate-77-part.html#ftUKL3AS2ifbAdC8.99
The stats we never see in the MSM.
My own view is that the widespread conversion of full time employees to “29ers” will actually improve the employment stats a bit, as more “29ers” are brought on to take up the slack.
Has anyone seen reliable stats on what the normal montly retirement rate should be vs actual?
How about this:
“Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 236,000 in February, and the
unemployment rate edged down to 7.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, construction, and health care”
(We report - you decide)
I think we are in long-term trouble and I think that any future president may have a hard time getting this country back on track. That being said, I can imagine that if the next president is a Republican, and if new policies were to result in the number of new jobs per month actually tripling (can you imagine 500,000 new jobs being created month after month?), I’m guessing that the press would decry the McJobs and say that the pace of job growth was far too slow. The press of 2018 might even highlight the fact that 70,000,000 Americans were not in the workforce and that it was the worst economy since Hoover.
Well the stock market is doing OK with the bummed out labor force. And BTW have you noticed that most things you buy are made with labor somewhere else? Of course, you did. So why are we puzzled when people are not working here?
In the last year, those “not” in the labor force rose by 1,693,000.
The lying administration and their lapdog media know they can fool the ignorant American every month. The stupid Democrats are happy to cash their government checks, but what is wrong with Wall St., whose “experts” swallow these lies whole? If your broker is one of these Obama enablers, fire him/her.
That puzzles me; I can see no reason that such a high-performing stock-market shouldn't be indicative of the corporations ability to hire... of course it could be the other way around: companies wringing out their people because "you're lucky to have a job in this economy", effectively forcing unpaid overtime and thereby boosting its 'bottom line'.
I would be utterly unsurprised if it came out that all of the stock-market was, at this point, manipulated/projected/imagined numbers... heck, I would be shocked to find that they were truly indicative of how well we're doing.
Heres a bit of reality:
We are 147k behind the jobs created for Jan and Feb 2012 so far.
Feb 2013 job creation: 236k
Feb 2012 job Creation: 271k
And of course the MSM and Nancy Pelosi are screaming "recovery for Wall $treet but not Main Street", right?
The reason that the stock market is doing so well is because the companies represent real value, regardless of the worthless dollar.
RE: The reason that the stock market is doing so well is because the companies represent real value, regardless of the worthless dollar.
Don’t forget Bernanke printing money.
Bruce Johnson of the American Thinker is correct when he observes:
As long as Ben Bernanke decides to keep money loose, the stock market will rise.
Restated, as long as one man holds to one mindset, the market will rise.
Does this sound like a free market? Or, does it resonate as a managed affair sponsored by a semi private powerful agency run by one unelected man? Bernanke is arguably the most powerful man in the word without a military.
As models and programs chase historically modest dividend returns one wonders of the fragility of this entire arrangement. The money is in a forced accommodative low rate mode by the Federal Reserve. It is reasonable to assume that free rates would be somewhere above the current near zero rates forced by Bernanke.
Rates are forced to these levels, as the reasoning suggests, because we are still in an emergency mode. There seems nothing so permanent as a temporary emergency mode implemented by a quasi government agency.
Loose money is supposed to increase employment. We can see it increases stock prices, but its impact on employment is moot.
The question is then, “where would the market be if rates were free to find their own level?” Where would rates be if the Fed didn’t lend money to the Treasury each week? Could this market handle a .5% rate increase? What would that do to all the dividend capture programs long the market?
The Federal Reserve is in an unmanageable position, and some of the board members are acutely aware of the dangers. To ease out or unwrap the Federal Reserve balance sheet would be a catastrophic awakening for the stock market
See, what more proof do we need that 6 TRILLION more of debt makes the economy take off !
If we spend 10 TRILLION more then unemployment will be near 0%
DOW 25,000 bitchez !
Actually, the worthless dollar are the main reason for the higher stock markets here. I gave up a while back trying to equate rising stock prices with values. It’s mostly about Fed Policy these days.
I heard the NEWSPEAK labor stats on the clueless radio news toay ,, I knew there had to be a more realistic answer somewhere..
BTW I hear the sugar ration is being increased from 2 lbs. to a full 24 ounces!
And yet I believe that such needs to happen.