Imagine if we had funded infrastructure and green energy development as PBO proposed.

Even so, the changes he WAS able to force through the idiotic Congress is bearing fruit.

We're on the cusp of really seeing big jumps in wage growth. Yellen better get ready to raise interest rates real fast because it's about to heat up real fast.

I think NOT!

Good job Mr. President!

Nothing.

And all that he had to do to keep the bottom from falling out.

By bailing out the banks and car companies at the cost of over a trillion dollars? Is that what you mean?
Is that what you call a "good job"?

YES!

There was another very simple alternative. Instead of buying preferred (non voting) stock in these companies, the government could have bought common stock, and put some government officials on the board of directors, as happens in some social-democratic countries. Then the public could have gotten something for its money: part ownership and control of these leviathan big business and banks.

A country hell bent on privatizing everything?

You would be screaming that the government was taking over business if that happened. What was done worked!

And please don't put words in my mouth.

I would not be "screaming" about the government takeover of business. Socialism is what this country needs.

Why do you assume that all criticism of recent government policies has to come from the right?

That's just an invalid presupposition.

simple yes or no.

Disclaimer: I didn't believe it would work. Thank God I was wrong...and so were you

Do you have anything that actually is correct, or are those your only tunes?

TARP was actually quite a moneymaker for the government

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html

Yes, Obama helped the auto industry after he got into office, but it started under Bush.

The banks was all Bush.

Your confusing the bank bailout with the stimulus package. A common error.

That's chart 1. Chart 2: the DJI is rising primarily because profits are up from cost cutting, including labor costs. But thanks for replying with something besides an insult. I mean it.

Call it trickle down if you like, it put people back to work.

Was it large enough? Hardly. Was it the best that Obama could do at the time. Most likely.

Like it or not, the DJI is reflective of the state of our economy. I'm a small investor but still have made a nice rate of return over the last 6 years.

The stimulus package was a more-or-less Keynes-style government intervention, and it worked, just like it always has before. It COULD have been even more effective if the Congress had a embraced the large-scale direct employment type stimulus Obama wanted, rather than the less-efficient stimulus mish-mash the Repugs would accept. I wish we would have had a few more Dems with Backbone in Congress in 2009-10.

change the start date back a ways and click 'GO'.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

You're right.

Dont think Obama had anything to do with that.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/labor_force_participation_report.pdf

Much more detail and good analysis.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/11/art3full.pdf

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.

But it’s also true that the decline has been even steeper than projected. For example, in that 2006 report, BLS projected the participation rate would decline to 64.5 percent in 2020. It’s already 1.7 percentage points below that in 2015.

According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in February 2014, “[T]he unusually low rate of labor force participation in recent years is attributable to three principal factors: long-term trends, especially the aging of the population; temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages; and some longer-term factors attributable to the unusual aspects of the slow recovery of the labor market, including persistently low hiring rates.”

CBO estimated that between the end of 2007 (a year before Obama took office) and the end of 2013, about half of the decline in participation rates could be pegged to long-term demographic trends, about a third to “temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages,” and about a sixth to “unusual aspects of the slow recovery.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/

But other than that, nothing.

less.

Touché!

frometh thy butteth.

What did he do? Steady, non-hysterical, calm, pragmatic leadership.

Fucking duh.

This news plus the recent raising of the minimum wage in some states and cities bodes well for our young people. They need this! I am a food service worker in my 50's and every single cook in that restaurant has two jobs and most of the servers, also.

One young man, 17, works seven days a week usually 16 hours a day. I worry about his long term health.

- no this has nothing to do with expiring benefits. These are NEW applications.

- no it isn't because there's nobody left to cut. There are just short of 150M employed people in the US, more than ever before

- no it's nothing to do with stagnant wages, which have been slowly improving in real and nominal terms for several years, or an aggregate shift to fast food work instead of skilled labor, belied by the same data

Tell that to the over 6000 people layed off in louisiana because of down turn in oil im one of them

From the DOL report: "Initial claims for state unemployment benefits declined 26,000 to a seasonally adjusted 255,000 for the week ended July 18...."

If you made your initial claim for state unemployment benefits in the week ended July 18, you had lots of company. 254,999 other people joined you. Though that's fewer people making initial claims since the week ended November 24, 1973, that's still a lot of people.

Besides, you and the other 5999 weren't laid off from low oil prices, but rather greed. The oil companies have tones of cash(from when prices were high) in banks to keep all of you employed for decades. They just don't want to spend it.

I'm sorry for your situation. I hope the emerging green economy provides you a job very soon.

Lastly, you are fooling yourself if you think that Bernie will help oil prices rise. Big Corporate Money Hillary is your best bet there in the Democratic primary.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Pass an infrastructure spending/jobs bill and put people to work. You can always spot a lurking con because the labor participation rate is the first negative thing they can cite in the face of positive jobs/economic news.

That's your reply to the chart? Personal attacks instead of facts or logic?

So why post that in this thread?

I would not like to spare you the effort of thinking for yourself.

And we can discuss it. But make sure it's not in latest breaking news, because the cbo predicted this drop 10 years ago. It's demographics.

Thank you very much for your advice.

Men have been leaving the labor force at a fairly steady rate since at least the 50's. The increase in the overall labor force participation has come from women ENTERING the labor force. That leveled off in the late-90's leading to a slow overall participation rate decline. Female participation declined most seriously in the Great Recession, as they were often the victim of LIFO policies, and a general dismantling of child care and after school program benefits by Congress and the States. The bleeding has slowed, but it's significantly reduced.

I recommend you read this, which presents a fairly nuanced look at the data:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/labor_force_participation_report.pdf

the already gigantic comment section of my monthly BLS employment thread.

... prior predictions. I thought Obama was going to push unemployment up to 15 or 20%, as the RW claimed. Hasn't happened. So you seek new metrics.

btw ... what's happening in that graph is that Baby Boomers who had to delay retiring thanks to the Bush Depression, are now finally able to retire because the value of their 401ks and pension plans have soared under Obama. This drop in participation rate was predicted almost 20 years ago and is based mainly on shifting demographics.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 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.

.................

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.”

..........................

According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in February 2014, “[T]he unusually low rate of labor force participation in recent years is attributable to three principal factors: long-term trends, especially the aging of the population; temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages; and some longer-term factors attributable to the unusual aspects of the slow recovery of the labor market, including persistently low hiring rates.”

CBO estimated that between the end of 2007 (a year before Obama took office) and the end of 2013, about half of the decline in participation rates could be pegged to long-term demographic trends, about a third to “temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages,” and about a sixth to “unusual aspects of the slow recovery.”

CBO, November 2014: Of the 3 percentage-point decline in participation between the end of 2007 and the end of 2013, CBO estimates, about 1½ percentage points was the result of long-term trends, about 1 percentage point arose from temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages, and about one-half of a percentage point was attributable to unusual aspects of the slow recovery.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/

I've personally seen this phenomenon at General Dynamics in Scottsdale, AZ. Retiring Baby Boomers(admittedly some were laid off and just decided to retire) have emptied out this place. I think some age discrimination has also caused folks to just retire.

Repukes like to site Reagan's labor participation rate, but he governed during the opposite scenario...when baby boomers entered the work force, both employees and starting businesses to exploit that market.

Pathetic.

probably all(mostly republicans) the 24/7 political 'campaigns' have some way to let their thousands of political 'employees' get unemployment benefits in between 'campaigns' work.

in 2013 alone. And then all the added cuts the RepubliCONS have made to state unemployment rolls. You're lucky to get any unemployment anymore. I think the average is now 12 weeks. That doesn't last long in a recession.

And then there is a limit on the amount of unemployment benefits you can get - you can use them up pretty quickly and can't get more unless you find a job working full time. And try to find full time work after you've been fired.

To cheer that unemployment rolls declined is to be blind to the continuing shrinking benefits. It's NOT a sign of a good economy. It's a sign of austerity.

The headline is for INITIAL jobless claims. It is only those laid off this week, who filed for unemployment. It has NOTHING to do with "1.3 million kicked off in 2013".

There is simply no way to spin this news as bad. Economists generally agree that jobless claims above 400k signals contracting unemployment. When jobless claims are below 300k, employment is growing at a very nice rate. Now that it's at 250k, with the number of employed at an all time high, it means employment is rocketing upward.

Lastly, the recession ended seven years ago. The economy is not remotely close to being in recession.

If 1.3 million people were kicked off, that means there are 1.3 million people who can re-apply if they found jobs. But since they didn't find jobs they can't reapply. So it does impact the "initial" claims because initial includes those people who went back to work and then lost their jobs yet again and re-apply. Those people are counted as initial too. Continuing includes those who still have the little bit of benefits they haven't used up yet. NOT people who have applied for the second lost job.

Also do you not think screaming headlines telling you your unemployment benefits require piss tests for a lousy $60 a week is going to encourage people to apply? Do you think state senators telling you that you can't spend your unemployment on this and on that and that you have to prove you applied for crappy little jobs every week will make you apply? Do you think people didn't hear about the 1.3 million kicked off the rolls and think what's the use? Do you think the ever increasing bureaucratic paperwork, tests, controls and limitations on spending of benefits money encourages people to apply for unemployment?

As I said the drop in INITIAL CLAIMS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT is not about jobs coming back, it's about austerity.

"Economists generally agree that jobless claims above 400k signals contracting unemployment. When jobless claims are below 300k, employment is growing at a very nice rate. Now that it's at 250k, with the number of employed at an all time high, it means employment is rocketing upward."

Yeah and Economists generally agreed there was no recession until the crash and then surprise, surprise, there was one that had been on going for over a year.

You can consider it employment if you want but crappy little part time jobs at crappy little pay are merely "waiting around for something better" jobs. They are crappy and people only do them because they have no other choice. Most of those crappy little jobs would have either remained vacant in better economic times or they would have huge turnover rates. Obama and RepubliCONS call it employment, real people call it crap.

Most of the people I know who got fired during the beginning of the recession are either still unemployed or working part time crappy jobs. So technically the recession ended but in the real world the only ones who are doing well are the uber rich.

Keep feeding the propaganda machine and tell us serfs how wonderful the economy is but as for me, I'm going to believe my lying eyes.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the people who have been dropped from unemployment benefits.

It has a suppression affect on others who consider applying. Also they are not available to apply for initial claims because they used up their unemployment (unless they get a job and lose it again which is NOT happening in this lousy economy).

Also the states have been restricting, cutting, scrutinizing and requiring drug testing to get benefits and again it suppresses initial claims.

People getting kicked off the rolls certainly does affect claim numbers. If we lived in a vacuum, maybe it wouldn't.

... cause there is a "supression effect".

Ummm ... that is one of the dumbest theories I've every heard.

"I'm not going to apply, because after around 22 months of benefits, I'd get dropped." Anyone who thinks that would be too stupid to have a job in the first place.

Also ... your next point is silly. If you get a new job, and then lose it, you are again eligible. People who fall off the rolls were on the "initial claims list" when they were first laid off ... they have ZERO impact on this metric. You are simply wrong.

That graph is the year-to-year change.

Smaller positive changes are not the same as wages going down.

Given the 2% inflation target, and productivity gains not "trickling down" to workers, you should expect that graph to average around 2%.

You are correct. Rate of change of wages is not the same thing as wages themselves.

Example: the greatest rate of change of hours of daylight is in March or September, but that's not when you have the longest or shortest days.

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers are $801 in 2nd quarter 2015

Always best to read the fine print with graphs.

Ahahahahah, you still read those fools, who have been proven incorrect time and time again?

Things have dramatically improved in many parts of this country. For sure there are still issues with part-time, underemployed, low wage jobs but we are certainly on the right track... despite the worst intentions of the GOP congress.

Plenty of them in this thread alone.

and, besides, we don't believe these data, right, Jack Welch? These data are "cooked?"

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/welch-unemployment-rate/

It's his fault the economy is rising.