Posted on 05/29/2014 6:56:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
One problem with the FRED chart shown here going back to 1970 is that the workforce was a lot smaller 45 years ago. So 200,000 weekly jobless claims would have been reflected a larger part of the workforce. That chart would need to be adjusted to refelct the total workforce for that year.
These “reporters” should be fired if they wrote that headline. The job market is not and has not improved.
It never was, except on the op-ed page.
Even back in the day it was more liberal on the news pages than the NY Times.
If they’re based in Wash DC beltway area, things actually do look pretty good.
I’ve advised several new grads to head that way in the last 4 yrs and they’ve prospered quite nicely.
Other than the oil patch, it’s the one area of relative prosperity, albeit only because of the crushing burden of taxes on the general populace and the creation of 40% fake money.
They’ve joined the ranks of the boys with 1000 dollar suits and girls with 400 dollars dresses, handbags, and shoes.
That is what I am refering to. Comparison to total payroll is a more accurate reflection of the econmic effect.
I don’t ever see jobless claims ever going down to 200,000. 275,000 would be a sign of a fantastic recovery.
Right. If we get down to 275,000 initial claims that will be 0.2% of total non-farm employment which will be an all time low.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.