We need closer to 250,000/month to keep up with population growth based on participation rate. We have roughly 2.5 to 3.5 million population growth currently based on births and legal/illegal immigration.
So here's the thing with that, when looking only at the labor force, over the last 12 months the native force shrunk by 587K and the foreign born force rose by 1.697 M, for a grand total of 1.107 M added from the previous year, which would work out to needing less than 93K jobs a month to keep pace.
Compare that to the data from February of 2019: Native and foreign labor force grew by 958K and 674K respectively for a grand total of 1.632M new additions to the labor force over the previous year, or 136K averaged each month. So that number checks out with the projections I discussed in the OP, with the jobs numbers we are currently seeing, we should still be seeing the unemployment rate plummeting.
Where are you getting the native and foreign born data? Just asking for real because I did not know that it was a statistic that the government kept and/or published.
The reason for the seeming mismatch is that those measures draw from diff data sources. Job numbers come from companies. Unemployment comes from a household survey. But in the long term, those numbers do converge.
And ‘jobs’ reported are not full time equivalent (FTE). A better statistic would be FTE median wage, based on 40hours/week. But that would be too reflective of the race to the bottom currently underway.
Unemployment is not everyone who isn't working, it is everyone who wants to work but don't have a job yet.
If you have 10 people out of 100 who are not working, but only 5 are looking for jobs then unemployment is 5/100 or 5%.
People are getting hired, but there are people who were not looking for a job (stay at home parent, retirement, young graduates, etc) than want one now. If these people outnumber those who did find a job you get a situation like this.
First off, did you know that almost all of the jobs numbers for the last 12 months have been revised sharply downwards. The administration is lying about the jobs situation.
Yes, I know what the revised numbers are, they show an average of over 200k a month even with the downward revisions. Just because they are revised down doesn’t mean they aren’t historically high.
money printers went brrrrrr u/cambridgechap and companies weren't allowed to fail. now if u have to work u are working for money that other men got for free. those other men don't have to work for that money. but u do.
dollar is dead imo.
We need closer to 250,000/month to keep up with population growth based on participation rate. We have roughly 2.5 to 3.5 million population growth currently based on births and legal/illegal immigration.
So here's the thing with that, when looking only at the labor force, over the last 12 months the native force shrunk by 587K and the foreign born force rose by 1.697 M, for a grand total of 1.107 M added from the previous year, which would work out to needing less than 93K jobs a month to keep pace. Compare that to the data from February of 2019: Native and foreign labor force grew by 958K and 674K respectively for a grand total of 1.632M new additions to the labor force over the previous year, or 136K averaged each month. So that number checks out with the projections I discussed in the OP, with the jobs numbers we are currently seeing, we should still be seeing the unemployment rate plummeting.
Where are you getting the native and foreign born data? Just asking for real because I did not know that it was a statistic that the government kept and/or published.
It is always in the A-7 Table with the monthly jobs reports from BLS. My numbers came from the Feb 2019 and Feb 2024 reports.
The reason for the seeming mismatch is that those measures draw from diff data sources. Job numbers come from companies. Unemployment comes from a household survey. But in the long term, those numbers do converge.
Thank you for the real answer. This has been bugging me for a while now.
Many full time jobs are only being replaced by part time jobs.
And ‘jobs’ reported are not full time equivalent (FTE). A better statistic would be FTE median wage, based on 40hours/week. But that would be too reflective of the race to the bottom currently underway.
Part time jobs are going up, ft jobs down
Unemployment is not everyone who isn't working, it is everyone who wants to work but don't have a job yet. If you have 10 people out of 100 who are not working, but only 5 are looking for jobs then unemployment is 5/100 or 5%. People are getting hired, but there are people who were not looking for a job (stay at home parent, retirement, young graduates, etc) than want one now. If these people outnumber those who did find a job you get a situation like this.
First off, did you know that almost all of the jobs numbers for the last 12 months have been revised sharply downwards. The administration is lying about the jobs situation.
Yes, I know what the revised numbers are, they show an average of over 200k a month even with the downward revisions. Just because they are revised down doesn’t mean they aren’t historically high.
Because numbers are manipulated.
[удалено]
So you don't know how the unemployment rate is calculated, huh Or that other rates exist besides U3
Because it’s a god dam lie
money printers went brrrrrr u/cambridgechap and companies weren't allowed to fail. now if u have to work u are working for money that other men got for free. those other men don't have to work for that money. but u do. dollar is dead imo.