Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #2

---

Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #1

---

This truly is remarkable.

"I guess Obama is just lucky the way unemployment figures unexpectedly dropped right before the last two elections while he was in office, and then bounced upward afterwards. Sheer coincidence. Well, whaddya know? Unemployment just dropped again before the 2014 elections!

..................................

---

How convenient that just before the elections a half million people, give or take, decide to drop out of the labor markets.

You all believe that ans I've got this bridge ........

---

It's called the Labor Participation Rate. Almost 100,000 more people left the workforce than were new jobs added!

"While by now everyone should know the answer, for those curious why the US unemployment rate just slid once more to a meager 5.9%, the lowest print since the summer of 2008, the answer is the same one we have shown every month since 2010: the collapse in the labor force participation rate, which in September slid from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% - the lowest in over 36 years, matching the February 1978 lows. And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million! And that's how you get a fresh cycle low in the unemployment rate."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-03...ns-not-labor-fo

and here's how that factors in when compared with our population growth...
"If we take the labor participation rate at the start of the great recession, 66%, we get a whole other number of jobs needed each month to keep up with population growth. If we keep the same rate of unemployment, 8.1%, we would need 545,551 jobs per month and it would take an entire year to get to the same August rate of unemployment, 8.1%.
This is because by increasing the labor participation rate 2.5%, we took 6,089,150 people not counted and added them to the labor force statistics and of course, they would enter in as unemployed. The unemployment rate is the ratio of those in the civilian labor force who do not have a job against those who who do.
We can also estimate the number of jobs needed each month, just to maintain, by rough numbers. If we assume a smoothed noninstitutional civilian population growth rate of 0.076% per month, then next month's population growth would be 185,617 additional people ages 16 and over and not locked up somewhere. If we then assume the labor participation rate of this new growth would be 68.0% and not the actual, artificially low 63.5%, we would get an additional 126,920 jobs needed to keep up with this population growth."
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/...pulation-growth

See how numbers can LIE!!!!