Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 12, 2017

The total number of laid-off workers receiving unemployment benefits fell to 1.89 million at the end of September, the Department of Labor reported Thursday, the lowest such mark in nearly 44 years.

And new claims for unemployment benefits dropped 15,000 to 243,000 in the first full week of October, according to the agency, as the job market bounces back from hurricane damage even faster than forecasters expected.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Good claims numbers, which are released weekly, are one of the factors that will reassure officials in the Trump administration and at the Federal Reserve that the jobs recovery is intact, even though the hurricanes generated net job losses in September.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Labor participation rate is still at historic lows.

data.bls.gov

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2017-10-12 12:20 PM | Reply

1

so?

does this render the unemployment numbers bad?

#2 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-12 12:25 PM | Reply

--does this render the unemployment numbers bad?

Only if the president is an "R".

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-12 12:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Thank you President Obama.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2017-10-12 12:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at

It's got to be obvious to all by now that Trump spends his time doing nothing.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2017-10-12 12:35 PM | Reply

#1

It's hilarious how the libs have flipped on the value of this statistic, when the GOP mouthpieces were bringing it up in 2015 the left was shouting that it is irrelevant, now you bring it out everytime there is good news about unemployment.

The BLS predicted that labor participation rate would start to decline in 2006:

Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. According to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.
And the CBO, 2014, predicted that the labor participation rate would continue to decline through 2024
The agency projects that by the second half of 2017, the gap between actual and potential GDP will return to its average historical relationship -- bringing the effects of cyclical conditions on unemployment and labor force participation back to their average values in 2018. However, CBO projects, the aging of the population will further reduce labor force participation during the coming decade, and the longer-lasting effects of the recession and slow recovery on unemployment and the size of the labor force will continue, albeit with diminishing magnitude, throughout the decade. All told, CBO projects that the unemployment rate will fall to 5.8 percent by the end of 2017 and to 5.5 percent by 2024 (compared with 4.8 percent at the end of 2007) and that the labor force participation rate will decline to 60.8 percent by 2024 (compared with 66.0 percent at the end of 2007).
Factcheck.org summarized the BLS findings as to why the labor force participation rate would decline:
Consider a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued in November 2006, more than two years before Obama took office and before the start of the Great Recession. It pegged the start of the decline in participation rates at around 2000, and projected the decline would continue for the next four decades.

Among the reasons cited for the trend:

1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.

2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women's labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women's participation rate has been "displaying a pattern of slow decline."

3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, "Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths."

So no matter who was president, and independent of the health of the economy, BLS projected in 2006 that labor force participation rates were going to go down.

You are welcome.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-12 12:36 PM | Reply

The hardest work Donald does during any day is frightening people. Puerto Rico made the list this morning.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2017-10-12 12:36 PM | Reply

--Labor participation rate is still at historic lows.

Thank you President Obama.

#4 | Posted by Zed

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-12 12:38 PM | Reply

OCT 2018 will be telling.

#9 | Posted by fresno500 at 2017-10-12 12:39 PM | Reply

So thank you President Obama, the last full-time President of the United States.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2017-10-12 12:41 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

According to Trump, the unemployment number is fake and the participation rate is a disgrace.

I guess the wingdings that believe these numbers now will have to acknowledge that Obama did pull the US out of the great recession and shrink the unemployment rate.

#11 | Posted by bored at 2017-10-12 12:43 PM | Reply

It's hilarious how the libs have flipped on the value of this statistic...

Same can be said for the other side.

#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-10-12 12:44 PM | Reply

"when the GOP mouthpieces were bringing it up in 2015 the left was shouting that it is irrelevant"

got a link?

#13 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-10-12 01:14 PM | Reply

#13

Coco, there is this thingy called Google, you should try it sometime.

ChiefCocoTutSamMosesIamVille is Retarded

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-12 03:47 PM | Reply

#12

Congrats, that was my point.

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-12 03:48 PM | Reply

I guess the wingdings that believe these numbers now will have to acknowledge that Obama did pull the US out of the great recession and shrink the unemployment rate.

#11 | Posted by bored

What planet do you live on?

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-10-12 03:57 PM | Reply

It's hilarious how the libs have flipped on the value of this statistic ...

When unemployment claims dropped under Obama, all the Republicans like you said it was because the economy was so bad people gave up looking.

Now you want to use the same metric as prove the economy is good under Trump while lecturing us on being two-faced. Classic.

#17 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-12 04:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

LOL....the first post on this thread was the two-faced partisanship.

#18 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-12 04:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

On the subject matter......I think we were expecting labor participation to drop and stay low for some time due to baby boomers leaving the workforce. It's just the reality of a demographic shift.

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-12 04:34 PM | Reply

Now you want to use the same metric as prove the economy is good under Trump while lecturing us on being two-faced. Classic.

#17 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-10-12 04:27 PM

Congrats, that was my point Rogers, as I pointed out to Redial as well, you need to read the rest of the sentence as well as the rest of post in #6:

"when the GOP mouthpieces were bringing it up in 2015 the left was shouting that it is irrelevant, now you bring it out everytime there is good news about unemployment."

"So no matter who was president, and independent of the health of the economy, BLS projected in 2006 that labor force participation rates were going to go down."

Reading Comprehension: not only for Conservatives.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-12 04:56 PM | Reply

if everyone is employed, wtf is a "labor" participation rate?
sounds..."German."

#21 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-10-12 05:18 PM | Reply

Congrats, that was my point Rogers ...

If your point is that myself or anyone like me was two-faced on unemployment metrics, you're wrong wrong wrong. (Marcia Marcia Marcia.)

I look at these numbers the same way regardless of who's in office, and I like when they are good news.

#22 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-12 05:55 PM | Reply

What planet do you live on?

#16 | Posted by Sniper

The one where 2 years you heard that the REAL unemployment rate was 42% and you were complaining that 93 million were "underemployed" because Trump said so.

"We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed."

-- Donald Trump on Friday, August 28th, 2015 in an interview with Sarah Palin

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-12 06:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Labor participation rate is still at historic lows.

Agreed, this is the only number that matters ... if its flat its flat, perhaps at bottom ...

#24 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-10-12 06:46 PM | Reply

Agreed, this is the only number that matters ...

I disagree. If people are making no effort to find a job for a prolonged period, they aren't as important to measure as people actively looking for one.

No economy has ever been so good that jobs find people who aren't looking. We don't live in that kind of world today, if we ever did.

The U3 is the unemployment metric I take most seriously.

#25 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-12 08:26 PM | Reply

#22

Again, my point is that 726 throwing out the LFPR in #1 in an effort to denigrate the unemployment numbers made him no better than the GOP mouthpieces in 2015 that were doing the same thing, especially since the BLS predicted this would happen in 2006. You obviously didn't do that but knee-jerked out a response at me without taking the time to understand what was being said.

#26 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-12 08:30 PM | Reply

#25 | POSTED BY RCADE

Or move them from unemployed to the 'homeless' column.

#27 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-10-12 11:44 PM | Reply

"I disagree. If people are making no effort to find a job for a prolonged period, they aren't as important to measure as people actively looking for one."

It is important if those working or trying to work are going to be expected to support them.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-10-13 02:48 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort