Unemployment falls below 5%

[HunterSdVa29]

fivethirtyeight does a weekly summation of the BLS jobs report called In Real Terms, usually pretty good pts made there too

 

[kpt018]

ny times.. seems legit lol /sarcasm

You know that you can verify all of this. But it's probably easier to call it bullshit and keep thinking our economy is going down the tubes. Unless you work in business of course, then you should seek the truth.

 

[MeatheadMike]

ny times.. seems legit lol /sarcasm

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-payrolls-report-october-2016-120057333.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-as-unemployment-rate-dipped-to-4-9-percent/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/

Any of those seem legit?

Or do get your news exclusively from Stormfront and Infowars?

 

[Benjamin Burton]

because i dont believe what the liberal media tells me, i must somehow be a racist now. well done, i see you put a lot of thought into this.

 

[TheStruggle]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-payrolls-report-october-2016-120057333.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-as-unemployment-rate-dipped-to-4-9-percent/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/

Any of those seem legit?

Or do get your news exclusively from Stormfront and Infowars?

Washington Post, CNN, Yahoo...they don't have an agenda

 

[Joe]

You can't fucking spin a unemployment number. All the media members get it from the same source. Btw 4 years ago republicans said they would get the unemployment under 6%. Obama could not.

 

[MeatheadMike]

because i dont believe what the liberal media tells me, i must somehow be a racist now. well done, i see you put a lot of thought into this.

Washington Post, CNN, Yahoo...they don't have an agenda

How about Fox news?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/04/us-employers-add-161k-jobs-jobless-rate-slips-to-4-pct.html

 

[TheStruggle]

How about Fox news?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/04/us-employers-add-161k-jobs-jobless-rate-slips-to-4-pct.html

Sorry they aren't much better.

 

[MeatheadMike]

You can't fucking spin a unemployment number. All the media members get it from the same source. Btw 4 years ago republicans said they would get the unemployment under 6%. Obama could not.

I can't believe how deluded some people have become, to the point where they can't accept any news which doesn't fit their distorted view of the US... even if the news is easily verifiable.

 

[Benjamin Burton]

How about Fox news?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/04/us-employers-add-161k-jobs-jobless-rate-slips-to-4-pct.html

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
liberals use the most narrow and convenient definition of the word when describing unemployment.

the actual "labor force participation rate" is 62% that means that 62% of us are paying for the other 38%.

no matter how you define "unemployment" it doesnt change that.

 

[nac386]

Thanks Obama.

liberals use the most narrow and convenient definition of the word when describing unemployment.

So, the Republicans, when in office, use a different definition? When Romney said he could get unemployment to 6%, he was using some other measuring stick?

Of course not. They all use the same definition. For some reason, some of you just love to whine about "liberals" even when you do not have evidence to support your claim.

The economy can always get better, and whoever wins should try to improve the economy. But pretending like the economy is in the dumps because you hold certain political beliefs that differ from the party in power is childish.

 

[MeatheadMike]

Sorry they aren't much better.

Dude Seriously?

You can look up the statistics from the department of labor directly.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

If you still do not accept it? What would it take for you to do so?

 

[MeatheadMike]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
liberals use the most narrow and convenient definition of the word when describing unemployment.

the actual "labor force participation rate" is 62% that means that 62% of us are paying for the other 38%.

no matter how you define "unemployment" it doesnt change that.

Shifting goal posts I see. First the source (NYT) was unreliable, now that you have been proven wrong, there's a problem with the definition of unemployment... which has been the same ever since we started tracking unemployment.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

More jobs = more competitive labor market = higher wages.

Wont higher wages here also mean outsourcing to other countries, and for jobs that cant be outsourced, which job creator will want to create more of those if market is saturated?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

if you don't believe them, go to fivethirtyeight.com. it's an analytics site w/ no political slant that goes through the weekly job reports and posts all the important trends AND omissions/errors

edit: it also does advanced stats for sports and other things, elections/economics is just one of the topics they cover. Great site IMO

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-payrolls-report-october-2016-120057333.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-as-unemployment-rate-dipped-to-4-9-percent/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/us-october-jobs-report/

Any of those seem legit?

Or do get your news exclusively from Stormfront and Infowars?

You are talking to a group of people who have literally written off the entire practice of fact checking as "liberal bias" because fact checks NEVER show Trump favorably. And since Trump would never lie, that must mean the facts are being manipulated by Soros or something?

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

if you don't believe them, go to fivethirtyeight.com. it's an analytics site w/ no political slant that goes through the weekly job reports and posts all the important trends AND omissions/errors

edit: it also does advanced stats for sports and other things, elections/economics is just one of the topics they cover. Great site IMO

That's what THEY want you to believe. You sheeple!

 

[ILLogic]

And the rest of us keep hearing from people like Jack who point to some company bragging about adding "20 to 30 temporary employees at the end of the year" as if it's some type of growth. Nobody has ever hired extra help around the holidays or anything....

Then there's people like you who fail to mention that unemployment was at 10% when BO took office. It's now below 5%, but I'm sure the steady decline in the unemployment rate can be attributed to the holidays.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Wont higher wages here also mean outsourcing to other countries, and for jobs that cant be outsourced, which job creator will want to create more of those if market is saturated?

1. Possibly but if unemployment is low and wage growth is strong who cares about outsourcing?

2. Not really sure what your asking here. Companies don't arbitrarily create jobs, they post jobs because they have a need that needs to be filled and that need would exist regardless of the labor market. But if the labor market is tight it will increase the price for the job.

 

[mrbaapt]

But @colby25 has a friend who was a former town master that can't get a job with 30 years experience.

Therefore Obama is a loser Antichrist/Kenyan/Muslim/Atheist/Socialist/Hindu.