NYT: According to the data, fewer U.S. jobless claims suggest a rebounding economy.
Yes, I understand that and read the article. It's not that I am saying that the figures are wrong but the means they were derived. I'm pointing out that the means of determining the unemployment rate has been manipulated to exclude certain groups in order to make the unemployment figures look more acceptable.
This has been done a few times by past White House administrations. In the aftermath of Jimmy Carter's gas shortages, 18.5% home loan interest rates (☜
I remember that figure real well) and 15% inflation the early Reagan administration "quietly" factored in the armed services one branch at a time to artificially reduce the published unemployment figures. It served its intended purpose of instilling confidence in the recovery of the economy, helping to bring down interest rates, curb inflation and encourage hiring. The Obama administration has essentially done the same thing.
However it doesn't change the reality of the matter. It sickens me to see so many people come to me for jobs, even part time at minimum wage with employment histories of making far more than I could ever afford to pay them. I've hired a 39 yr old former newspaper assistant editor and a 53 yr old former five color press operator who were glad to get a chance as seasonal unskilled laborers. Truly sad.
Also below the radar, there are many people who've found limited employment as casual laborers, working strictly for cash often at less than minimum wage which still gives them more income that they'd make on payroll with taxes being deducted.
EDIT: I saw another thread and was reminded of something.
GDP is more important than unemployment numbers. Under realistic circumstance when GDP goes down the economy and job growth do so as well.
GDP was anticipated to be 1% for the first quarter of 2015. It came in as a sad 0.2% as of April 29th. The only ways that jobs can grow when the GDP dips are pretty straight forward and self evident.
Let's take 100 jobs at 40 hours a week for 4000 man hours of work. Employers can reduce those those jobs to 30 hours to avoid paying mandated government expenses on full time employees and at the same time hire 33 new employees. This is what's happened with the introduction of the Affordable Care Act. The way the figures are determined now this would show a substantial decrease in unemployment. All that is really accomplishing is lower incomes for 133 workers.
The other way is for more jobs to be created outside the economy that produce nothing with a direct impact on the GDP determined by the value of goods and services produced by a nation's economy. Goods produced within a nation that are exported are factored against the goods that are imported. Import more than you export, GDP goes down.
Government makes no direct contribution to the actual economy or the GDP. An increase in government jobs are still jobs but they must be supported by taxes that in turn have a negative effect on GDP. Increases of new hires in government are not the solution to a prosperous economy. Just imagine the same 100 workers as above but take 25 of them away to do things that have no effect on GDP. Now you can hire another 25 people at the same lower incomes. All you're accomplishing is dividing a pie into smaller and smaller portions until everyone is impoverished.
That's what socialism does best. Everyone except the upper 1% will eventually be reduced to the same level of misery. http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/2406433/weak-us-gdp-growth-dampens-expectations-of-june-rate-hike