The left and media are crowing – quietly, if one can indeed crow quietly – about the “Drop” in the unemployment number, from 8.2 to 8.1% in April.
They are being a lot more subdued about the much more important number; only 63.6% of the labor force from age 16 to retirement is participating in the labor market.
So when you take 8.1% out of that number, it means only 58.45% of the American work force is actually working right now.
Here are some fun facts about the employment figures:
- The month Barack Obama took office, 60.58% of the people were working.
- In June of 2009, when the recession officially “ended”, the number was was 58.46% – marginally better than last month.
- In October of 2009, when unemployment peaked at 10%? 58.5%.
- George Bush’s numbers went between a low of 61% (as he left office) and a high of around 63.5% in December of ’06.
- Wanna chalk Bush’s numbers up to the mortgage bubble? Not so fast: there are about 4.5% fewer people employed now than at this time ten years ago, as the economy was recuperating from the Dot Bomb
So many people have left the labor force, it’s literally gone off the top of the St. Louis Federal Reserve’s chart:
Looks like they need a new chart.
So what happens to an economy when less than 3/5 of the labor force is actually working for an extended period?
Does changing the Y Axis qualify as a shovel ready job?
Job created or saved perhaps?
Well, Social Security has taken a hit as thousands of unemployed people, their benefits exhausted and still unable to find a job, fake disabilities. The true unemployment numbers are always hidden by the regime.
Calypso: A shovel-ready job presumes there is someone willing to pick up the shovel. With U/E benefits capped at 99 weeks and the ease wtih which one can hurt one’s back picking up a bag of Cheetos while on the job, why would anyone want to work for a paycheck?
Mitch misled: “So many people have left the labor force, it’s literally gone off the top of the St. Louis Federal Reserve’s chart.”
Just goes to show how dishonest your wingnut pals are, Mitch. While there’s no significance to a Y-axis without enough numbers to contain the data (it’s simply a poorly drawn graph), all you have to do is click through to see that the original chart goes to 92,000 (in thousands), not 88,000.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=LNS15000000
So while your assertion is meaningless, it’s also a lie.
Wrong link: That’s just the page where you can generate your own graphs. Here’s the graph for people not in the workforce:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=LNS15000000
That just shows how shortsighted you commies are.
They can’t even put enough numbers on their Y axis – but they wanna manage your healthcare?
The point is they did. Click through the links – your source misstated the graph.
If you want to you could make the graph look as flat as North Dakota. Just change the millions to billions and AC could say there isn’t any increase.
Sure JPMN. Or you could start the Y-axis at zero and adjust for stuff like population growth and people who choose not to work, like Ann Romney. Or you could actually find a graph that presents meaningful data.