California's Jobless Rate Drops Below '08 Levels

[bobabode]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...319-story.html

"Job growth in California continued to outpace the rest of the U.S. in February as employers in the state added 29,400 workers during the month.
California’s unemployment rate fell to 6.7% from 7% a month earlier and 8% in February 2014, according to the state Employment Development Department. The rate is at its lowest level since May of 2008." LATimes


What do you know, we're almost as good as Minnesota.

[whell]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...-slack-remains

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' most comprehensive alternative measure of unemployment and underemployment (which it calls U6) includes the unemployed, the marginally attached and those involuntarily working part-time. It stood at 11 percent in February, 2.2 percentage points higher than at the start of the recession. By that measure, about 17.5 million people are unemployed or underemployed, or twice the 8.7 million people in the official unemployment measure.

Standing out among the unemployed are the long-term unemployed, who have been looking for a job for more than 6 months. They represent more than 31 percent of the unemployed (the largest figure in the half century before the Great Recession was 26 percent). At over 1.7 percent, long-term unemployment is still twice what it was at the start of the recession.

Just as unemployment remains too high, employment is still too low. The share of the population with a job, known as the employment-to-population ratio, reflects both the unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate (the share of the population working or actively looking for work). The sharp rise in unemployment in the Great Recession caused the employment-to-population ratio to fall about four percentage points to levels last seen in the 1980s; declining labor force participation kept it from rising from 2010 through 2013 even as the unemployment rate fell. And it has risen only modestly over the past year as labor force participation has stopped falling but remains low.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...-slack-remains

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' most comprehensive alternative measure of unemployment and underemployment (which it calls U6) includes the unemployed, the marginally attached and those involuntarily working part-time. It stood at 11 percent in February, 2.2 percentage points higher than at the start of the recession. By that measure, about 17.5 million people are unemployed or underemployed, or twice the 8.7 million people in the official unemployment measure.

Standing out among the unemployed are the long-term unemployed, who have been looking for a job for more than 6 months. They represent more than 31 percent of the unemployed (the largest figure in the half century before the Great Recession was 26 percent). At over 1.7 percent, long-term unemployment is still twice what it was at the start of the recession.

Just as unemployment remains too high, employment is still too low. The share of the population with a job, known as the employment-to-population ratio, reflects both the unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate (the share of the population working or actively looking for work). The sharp rise in unemployment in the Great Recession caused the employment-to-population ratio to fall about four percentage points to levels last seen in the 1980s; declining labor force participation kept it from rising from 2010 through 2013 even as the unemployment rate fell. And it has risen only modestly over the past year as labor force participation has stopped falling but remains low.

You're absolutely right Whell. The Right Wing trickle down economic experiment that has been going on since 1980 has been an abject failure.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

You're absolutely right Whell. The Right Wing trickle down economic experiment that has been going on since 1980 has been an abject failure.

I wondered how long it would take someone to blame Bush. But only TJ could peg the BS meter by blaming today's economy 35 year old news.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

You're absolutely right Whell. The Right Wing trickle down economic experiment that has been going on since 1980 has been an abject failure.

It's not "trickle down", "it's piss on" and it's been a success for those championing it.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

I wondered how long it would take someone to blame Bush. But only TJ could peg the BS meter by blaming today's economy 35 year old news.

He's not blaming Bush.

Read a book.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Boreas

He's not blaming Bush.

Boreas, you are sharp. I hope he sees it.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

He's not blaming Bush.

Read a book.

It's amazing that trickle-down (called Voodoo Economics by Bush I) remains an article of faith in the GOP. You'd think that an economic theory that has been so badly discredited would someday just wither and die.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It's amazing that trickle-down (called Voodoo Economics by Bush I) remains an article of faith in the GOP. You'd think that an economic theory that has been so badly discredited would someday just wither and die.

Even David Stockman became a skeptic.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by nailer

Even David Stockman became a skeptic.

He and Bush the Elder were both skeptics long before Reaganomics proved itself to be snake oil. It fits well with the Republican economic message - you can have it all, but you have to pay for it with tax cuts.