In the year that the U.S. economy was supposed to take off, an odd thing has happened: Americans are finding new jobs, but they aren’t finding employers willing to dole out meaningful pay increases.
It’s the tension at the center of an economy that is only growing more perplexing as it enters a perilous autumn.
Fresh data released Friday ”” showing unemployment at a seven-year low and a cooling pace of jobs growth ”” provided conflicting signals about the nation’s economic momentum as the Federal Reserve considers raising interest rates for the first time in nearly a decade. The U.S. added 173,000 jobs, slightly below expectations, while the unemployment rate fell to 5.1 percent. Never before has the nation’s unemployment rate plunged so low ”” a point when companies should be competing aggressively for workers ”” while wages have stayed so flat.
Which definition of unemployment? The one from the Reagan era or the cooked one from the Obama era? Apples to oranges, etc.
1. dwstroudmd+: yeah, exactly. What’s the point of posting articles like this when the numbers are fudged to not include people who’ve just stopped looking for jobs?
Articles like this are posted for numerous very logical and understandable reasons–we just had the unemployment report, it is the day before Labor Day, this is a major debate which will inform the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decision at its upcoming meeting, and it informs the backdrop eonomically in the midst of which so much parish ministry takes place today.
I noted in the title that it is headline unemployment which is being discussed, which is u-3. I am well known on this blog for preferring the much for accurate u-6 figure which recently came in at more than double u-3’s rate, at 10.3%.
Thank you for the clarification on the “headline unemployment” as u-3 with actual unemployment as u-6. The difference is substantial and the mainstream media cannot be trusted to inform of the differing definitions, a la Newspeak.