That "discouraged worker" logic is so specious. It night just as well be a rich, successful Baby Boomer worker who retires early.

We might see 4% unemployment within 5-10 years, with Boomers now reaching 60.

Drudge is reporting that Dick Cheney is walking with a cane due to a foot problem. I think his back is faltering due to the massive strain of having such gigantic cock and balls.

so "The Era of Discouraged Workers" it is

so that's why there was a dead guy in my street this morning.

They're not unemployed. They're undead. These upward revisions are always due to the initial oversight of Nosferatu.

I blame BUSH!!!!

November spurt. Wasn't that a Guns 'N' Roses song?

An unemployment rate under 5%, in a market economy, is probably as close to full employment as you're ever going to get. What's all the more remarkable about America's economy is that it's post-industrial -- the job growth continues despite a major decline in manufacturing and agriculture. And not only are jobs being created, personal wealth is being created at a record rate.

And all this after two devastating hurricanes, the flooding of a major city, a war on two fronts abroad, and a Republican-dominated legislature that doesn't know whether to shit or go blind.

Market-based capitalism works, babies.

I don't quite understand it. My ma-in-law will never show up in unemployment stats because she's "retired" (taking Social Security, using savings) but she will work contract jobs when offered. She was supposed to have had this last "temporary" job for only 3 months, and it's been over a year now. And if the avian flu really does become a pandemic, she'll have a job for the next several years, I'm guessing. Dagnabbit.

I don't think the Boomers are really going to retire terribly quickly, at least not the ones in the skilled professions. Those in the unskilled professions might try it, and see how they can fare on Social Security, but I'm betting a lot of those will have to go back to work til they're 70 or more.

People dropping out of the labor market is not necessarily a bad thing. Often, it's the second wage-earner in a family, who had been looking for work b/c the primary earner was under-employed.

In other words, mom can now stay at home b/c dad is earning enough to support the family.

The point about unemployment falling due to "some people leaving the labor market" is misleading at best. The unemployment rate comes from the Household Survey, in which the Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys 60,000 households. This is different from the Establishment Survey, which covers 400,000 established businesses, and is the source of the 108K figure. The Household Survey showed a fall in the labor force of 30K during December, but it also showed 148K new jobs created (and nearly 2.5 million for the year), something that the AP writer didn't mention. He mixed data from two separate surveys without providing the necessary context.

Most of the folks I talk to didn't see much cause for concern in this report. You can make a bullish case or a bearish case out of it, if that's what you want to do. I guess that's an endorsement of calling it 'mixed.' The sell-side economists I follow seem to have adapted the report to their pre-existing notion of how the economy is doing - if they thought that the economy was tipping over before the report, they characterized it as a "soft report" and focused on the fact that 108K was below the market's expectations, for example. If not, then they would focus on, for example, the average number of jobs created over Nov and Dec combined (206K), which was quite similar to the pre-Katrina average (June-August average was 200K).

In general, the press's coverage of economic numbers is, as you probably know, absolutely terrible, because reporters either don't know what they're talking about or they deliberately select/omit figures to fit the story they want to write rather than letting the data guide the story.

No one seems to care about the Household report, and I'm not going to fight that. Besides, the employer report is usually positive enough.

I don't placate with the household report.

Anytime you hear someone talking about the unemployment rate or people joining or dropping out of the labor force, they are referring to the Household survey. I wouldn't say that nobody cares about it, since I know plenty of people who do...

But I also have to agree with you, Ace, that the Establishment survey has been pretty positive anyway, despite the whining and moaning of the MSM.

"If you are employed, the economy is booming. If a friend gets laid off, it's a recession. If YOU get laid off, it's a depression. Pass the bong, baby!"- Thomas "Jefferson" Chong

"I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."

November spurt. Wasn't that a Guns 'N' Roses song?

Um...no. It's actually an upcoming Ang Lee movie - the heartbreaking tale of two gay presidential candidates, who because of political differences and an intolerant society dominated by Jeebus zombies, are painfully kept apart.

I don't think anyone can say that the job economy is not improving. I still feel that the question is what are the wages. Where is Median income? Are people taking jobs that are paying less than they are trained for? As I understand it, the wages are stagnant at best, and median incomes are still falling to pre 2001 levels after inflation adjustments. I think the economy is moving in a positive direction, the question is what can we do to make it better?

Remember back in 1996, when unemployment was 5.6% and the press and the WH told us that was "virtually full employment!"

Funny how some things are only true sometimes. Who knew truth was such a changable thing?

the question is what can we do to make it better?

Simplicity itself!

1. Turn out better-educated kids, and more of them (a large and well-educated workforce is esential to compete in a global economy). A corrolary of this is to totally re-engineer public schools (K-12) and break the power of the teacher's unions.

2. And while I'm on an anti-union jag: get rid of any public-sector union. Government-employee unions should outrage any taxpayer, regardless of political affiliation.

3. Don't piss away your income on credit debt. Americans in general carry way too much credit debt, which is good for the credit-card companies and almost no one else.

4. Keep confiscatory taxation to an absolute minimum. (If we really want to get nutty: abolish the income tax and replace it with a 10% flat tax or something like Neal Boortz' FairTax.)

5. Shitcan or substantially reduce large entitlement programs like Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. Not going to happen soon, of course, but eventually these programs are going to have to go.

6. Encourage private-sector entrepreneurship in emerging markets like biotech, nanotech, and civilian space exploration. A corrolary: reduce governmental regulation of these industries to allow more competition. It might make sense to offer federal subsidies in certain cases, but in general I think subsidies are a bad idea.

7. Reduce and/or eliminate external threats, especially those to stategic energy and financial markets. Obvious, but often overlooked. Like it or not, America runs on two things right now: money and oil. If you want to prosper, it is vital to keep both assets flowing freely.

8. Finally -- don't depend on Uncle Sugar to support you in your old age. Save for retirement, plan on retiring later, and invest wisely.

It's common-sense stuff -- it's mostly about removing barriers rather than raising them.

I had a November spurt once...

Well, actually more than once!!

Monty, I wish any one of those points would happen, let alone more than one... :)

Monty,
Those are great conservative long term goals, but short term what could the gov't do to help?

what could the gov't do to help?

Why are you waiting for the government to do anything?

If you're waiting for Uncle Sugar to do you a favor, you're going to die cold, broke, and alone. All the government can do short-term is cut taxes and fart around with interest rates. Cutting taxes is a laudable goal, but we've probably gotten as much of that as we're going to for the time being. And interest rates really only matter in the aggregate, or if you're buying or selling big-ticket items like real estate.

It's like your questin about wages: you seem to assume that there's some standard rate for certain kinds of jobs. That's horseshit. You're worth what you can get -- I've seen fry cooks pulling down $15 or more an hour because they were good at their jobs, and I've seen lawyers that barely pull in $40K a year ("chickenshit money", as my granddad called it). If you don't like what you're being paid, move on and get a job that does pay what you want. If you're not willing to move, or don't like the job, then you're making a choice; don't blame the market.

Monty, you alter kaker, how can you be so insensitive to Craig's quest for economic equity?

One suggestion, Monty. How about Uncle Sugar-Daddy?

Better? Just sayin'...

Michael,

Trayf, Michael, you pisher! I should give you such a knock, I should! Speaking this way to me. You are a schande to your poor mother! So ashamed she would be!

(And that pretty much exhausts my Yiddish; any more and I'd need to call my old friend Yehude in Wilmington. He was a mensch.)

Furthermore, economic equity is for cock-knocking Socialist pinko fucksticks who can suck the shit straight from my market-driven capitalist ass.