finance, I've had jobs in banking and energy. so yeah, there is a lot of learning and teaching in these threads.
It takes around 350k jobs to keep up with the increase in the size of the workforce (213k entered the workforce this month). This is why unemployment went up . 200k is bad in other words.
if people think adding 200k jobs is good then yes. If they hold Obama/Dems accountable for bad economic news then maybe it can be turned around.
Here is the link to the BLS press release. Where did the 213k number come from? It seems that more have left the work force per below. Not a rosy picture. http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Or this could be a case of structural unemployment rather than mismanagement of the economy by Obama.
Comments like blaming the differential between his theoretical "jobs needed to keep up with the labor force" and the actual job created for the unemployment rate increase also demonstrates that he has no idea how either number is calculated.
I am not referring to net. I am just referring to those entering which would be the adult population growth taken from the household survey. I am confused. You don't think legislation has an affect on the economy?
Depends on your source, I guess. (sorry for the size of the image) http://www.floatingpath.com/2013/10/22/u-s-employment-situation-september-2013/
from your source. "This means that the ratio of full-time workers to total workers in September was 81.01%, an increase from August’s 80.58%, but still historically very low."
BTW, your chart is for % of Full Time compared to Part Time work force. My chart is participation rate. "The headline unemployment rate can be misleading, and it often paints a rosier picture of labor market conditions than is called for. The headline rate doesn’t include marginally attached or discouraged workers — those who are underemployed and those who have given up on searching for a job, respectively. What’s more, the headline unemployment rate is sensitive to changes in the labor force participation rate, or the share of all adults who are willing and able to work, be they already employed or looking. As of September, the labor force participation rate was 63.2 percent, flat with August, and substantially lower than its pre-crisis level of about 66 percent. This reduction in the labor force participation rate has helped reduce the headline unemployment rate without actually raising the overall level of employment or improving the health of the labor market."
Do you have a specific legislation in mind? When they are doing their job, Republicans also pass legislation. Is there anything the Democrats that uniquely jeopardizes the economy?
Participation rate is a totally different concept than part vs full time jobs. You titled your chart: "Percent of full time jobs." There are also a lot of other factors affecting labor force participation rates - for example, workers choosing to retire (or not doing so) or becoming self-employed. It will vary in part due to an aging population and other things that have little do with economic policy. Participation rates peaked around 2000 and have been falling since then, in both good and bad economies.
