Unemployment Claims fall

[Charles_Main]

Tomorrow's number is the one that matters, job adds. If he doesn't start getting 150,000 to 200,000 a month by mid next year he's a one termer for sure.

If we can't get it to there by then. We all fucked.

 

[Sallow]

Tomorrow's number is the one that matters, job adds. If he doesn't start getting 150,000 to 200,000 a month by mid next year he's a one termer for sure.

This is probably correct.

 

[william the wie]

The number of heterosexual couples living together without marriage is going up but what is bizarre are the increasing number of people who admit that they are paying the rent using nature's charge card.

 

[Trajan]

Tomorrow's number is the one that matters, job adds. If he doesn't start getting 150,000 to 200,000 a month by mid next year he's a one termer for sure.

since we need 125 to 150K just to keep up with new additions to the workforce ala population growth, thats not going to cut it, not even close.

At the signs of a real economic awakening, the unemployment figure will spike, we'll need 400k or so for several quarters.....aint happening.

 

[Trajan]

You are not getting the point, again tens of thousands of folks, that have always worked, now are working part-time.

I understand perfectly. The actual numbers for August 2010 are:
Total Part time (<35hrs/week) = 27,418
Part time for non-economic reasons (choice, child-care/family/transportation/medical issues) = 18,558,000
Part time due to slack business = 6,380,000
Part time due to inability to find full time work = 2,347,000
total part time for economic reasons = 8,860,000

Compare this to pre-recession (Aug 2007 as a random date):
Total Part time (<35hrs/week) = 24,266,000
Part time for non-economic reasons (choice, child-care/family/transportation/medical issues) = 19,665,000
Part time due to slack business = 2,991,000
Part time due to inability to find full time work = 1,186,000
total part time for economic reasons = 4,601,000

So clearly things have gotten worse, and it is being tracked. So I'm not sure what your complaint is. No they're not included as "unemployed" because they're not unemployed. But they are being tracked and the problem is known.

Calling them "unemployed" as part of the official numbers would only make it unclear how difficult it is or is not to find a job at all.

Source: Historical Data Table A-8 of the Employment Situation Report (seasonally adjusted all industries)

Go back and look at the original post and the one following. These numbers are not good for Obama and Co., to pretend they are is foolish. Reminds me of a thread started this morning I believe by Maggie Mae on why working class people would favor the GOP by 58% currently.

just wait till tomorrow, if the rate goes up even a tenth of a point the spin will be , well, all get out.......then the gdp figure for Q3 comes late this month...another spin fest and the number will be ugly.