2 years of job growth

[Guest EXPAT]

Of course the GOP are down playing the job numbers today, but having consistent job growth for two years is impressive and I think if it grew any faster then it would be from gimmicks instead of proper growth. I think the bigger issue though are the chronic unemployed or long term unemployed.

I think having this chart on his watch is not a bad thing for the upcoming election cycle.

[RA1]

Did you mean 'underemployed"? To me it is really difficult to tell what is really going on. One report says more jobs. Another says unemployement is actually up because those who had temporarily left the ranks of those seeking employment are now back in the game. One group says unemployment is actually close to 15% because of those who are not currently seeking employment. ETC.

Most likely, both sides are not telling all of the truth, whatever that might be. One of my pressing questions is, what did we really get for our almost trillion dollar expenditure of public funds?

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest EXPAT]

The way the government looks at the % unemployed does discount those who voluntarily left the work force. But when you have 150,000-300,000 new jobs created every month you begin chipping away at a big hole. That's a step in the right direction regardless of what the real % may be and how it's counted.

[Guest CharliePS]

I think that more important than the number of jobs created is the quality of the new jobs. If they pay less than the ones that disappeared and are less stable, then the newly employed may feel some relief but not a whole lot of satisfaction. If they are not jobs that support a middle-class lifestyle, then the middle class is not likely to be happy with the policies and politicians that created them.