Skip to main content

The economy created 216,000 seasonally adjusted new private jobs in May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday, close to expectations. Add 1,000 public sector jobs for a total of 217,000. Both full-time and part-time jobs are included in the total. The official unemployment rate was unchanged at 6.3 percent.

Jobs grew to a total that is 97,000 above the pre-recession peak and an all time high.

The civilian labor force rose by 192,000 in May, compared with a whopping drop of 806,000 in April. The employment-population ratio remained steady 58.9 percent. The labor force participation rate also remained where it was, 62.8 percent, after a 0.4 percent drop in April.

The number of officially unemployed Americans remained at 9.8 million. But this does not include millions of workers who have left the workforce out of despair that they will find a job.

Another alternative measure—U6—includes Americans with no job, AND also those working part time who want full-time positions and workers who have looked for jobs in the past 12 months but not in the past four weeks. U6 fell from 12.3 percent in April to 12.2 percent in May.

“The fourth month in a row of above 200,000 job gains is encouraging but the overall data was about in line with expectations and still points to an economy that is growing closer to 2.5% and not 3%,” Peter Boockvar at Lindsey Group wrote.

Gains in March were unrevised at 203,000, and they were revised from 288,000 to 282,000 in April.

The number of long-term unemployed—jobless for 27 weeks or more—fell slightly to 3.4 million, 34.6 percent of the total unemployed.

For more details about today's jobs report, please continue reading below the fold.

The payroll services company Automatic Data Processing reported on Wednesday that the economy gained a seasonally 179,000 private-sector jobs for May. ADP does not report on public-sector jobs and its calculation rarely match those of the BLS for private-sector jobs.

The Economic Policy Institute has been keeping track of what it calls "missing workers." These are Americans "who, because of weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking a job." That is, they are people who would either be working or actively seeking work if the economy were stronger. Jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work. Thus these “missing workers” are not reflected in the unemployment rate.

EPI says there are currently 5.95 million of these missing workers and that if they were looking for jobs, the unemployment rate would be 9.7 percent. You can find EPI's methodology for calculating "missing workers" here. Here are three charts showing its findings:

Among other news in the May job report:

Demographic breakdown of official (U3) seasonally adjusted jobless rate:

African American: 11.5 percent
Latino: 7.7 percent
Asian (not seasonally adjusted): 5.3 percent
American Indian (data not collected on monthly basis)
White: 5.4 percent
Adult women (20 and older): 5.7 percent
Adult Men (20 and older): 5.9 percent
Teenagers (16-19): 19.2 percent

Duration of unemployment:

Less than five weeks: 2.6 million
5 to 14 weeks: 2.4 million
15 to 26 weeks: 1.4 million
27 weeks and more: 3.4 million

Job gains and losses in selected categories:

Professional services: + 55,000
Transportation and warehousing : + 16,000
Leisure & hospitality: + 32,000
Information: -  5,000
Health care: + 55,000
Retail trade: + 12,500
Construction: + 6,000
Manufacturing: + 10,000
Average weekly manufacturing hours rose 0.2 hours to 41.1 hours.
Average work week for all employees on non-farm payrolls remained at 34.5 hours.
Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose a nickel to $24.38.

Here's what the seasonally adjusted job growth numbers have looked like in May for the previous 10 years.

May 2004: + 307,000
May 2005: + 175,000
May 2006: +   23,000
May 2007: + 144,000
May 2008: -  182,000
May 2009: -  354,000
May 2010: + 516,000 (heavy Census hiring)
May 2011: + 102,000
May 2012: + 110,000  
May 2013: + 199,000
May 2014: + 217,000

The BLS jobs report is the product of a pair of surveys, one of more than 410,000 business establishments called Current Employment Statistics, and one called the Current Population Survey, which questions 60,000 householders each month. The establishment survey determines how many new jobs were added. It is always calculated on a seasonally adjusted basis determined by a frequently tweaked formula.  The BLS report only provides a snapshot of what's happening at a single point in time.
It's important to understand that the jobs-created-last-month-numbers that it reports are not "real." Not because of a conspiracy, but because statisticians apply formulas to the raw data, estimate the number of jobs created by the "birth" and "death" of businesses, and use other filters to fine-tune the numbers. And, always good to remember, in the fine print, they tell us that the actual number of newly created jobs reported is actually plus or minus 100,000.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos and Daily Kos Economics.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  NOTE!!! I want the chart before the squiggle... (0+ / 0-)

    to be depicted with the GREAT Depression of 1929 and the LONG Depression of the 19th Century.

    All of these need to be shown together.

    Who decided to leave off the two big depressions that compare with the GREAT "Recession"???

    Ugh. --UB.

    The Republican Party is run by the KOCH BROTHERS.

    by unclebucky on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:09:08 AM PDT

  •  Still not great. (7+ / 0-)

    I'm glad for any improvement, but when 1 out of every 8 working age person is unemployed, that is not a good thing.

    It took me over five years to find a full time job, in that time I was holding down three part time ones. (i'm sure that I would not have been counted as three people)  Of course the full time job still does not pay enough to not have one of the part time jobs.

    I'm seeing a lot of people in the same boat, years of looking for full time employment, but not finding it while working several part time jobs.  

    Is there any counting that shows people who want full time work but can't get it who have part time jobs?

    Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

    by DrillSgtK on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:09:23 AM PDT

    •  Define "great" with this teahadi congress? (5+ / 0-)

      Prior to April's jobs report, it looked as if Boehner his fellow domestic terrorists had accomplished their goal in bringing the economy to a standstill, if not heading backwards.

      Hopefully the next report, or the one after that, knocks the jobless rate below 6%. Psychologically it would be a big deal for Obama and Democrats for the midterms.

      Not that the American public will give them any credit for it. As far as they're concerned, Dems are as much to blame for gridlock in Washington as the 'baggers.

    •  U6 (8+ / 0-)

      That's included in the U6 number, as noted in the post.  It's at 12.2%, which is down slightly from the prior month and down significantly from the depth of the recession (it was at 17.4% in October 2009).  Generally, the U6 leads the U3 ("headline number"), because employers tend to hire part time and temporary employees before full time employees and fire them or reduce full timers to part time before firing full time employees.

      In truth, your experience is exactly what the numbers indicate- things are better than they have been in the last 5 years, but there's still an elevated number of people both lacking jobs entirely and underemployed.

    •  the false bump in those numbers (4+ / 0-)

      Count me among the forcibly self-employed, since 2008. That's right - I don't show up in the numbers, and except for a few weeks of unemployment at the outset, I never have. Yet I have been looking for a 'job' ever since. Certainly, there are many in a similar situation - completely off the radar, and since no one is looking for us, this invisible sector of the economy is simply not measured at all.

      It hasn't been easy sledding, and I have certainly had my share of difficulty. I face the same biases in searching for work that I face in finding a job.... but I have maintained my productive self, paid my taxes, have an uninterrupted portfolio of work, and though I can make a few thousand on my own, I produced millions for my employers. Millions. Never could figure out why I was let go.

      The economy is a market of markets - and it mirrors the nation's mentality as a whole: completely irrational.

    •  The BLS data is immense but somewhat navigable (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DrillSgtK, Eric Nelson, Meteor Blades
      Is there any counting that shows people who want full time work but can't get it who have part time jobs?
      As JLan noted what you're seeking is included in U6, but that doesn't narrow down how much of U6 is composed of the category you're asking about.  In BLS data U6 includes:
      Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
      You're just looking for "total employed part time for economic reasons" which for May was 7.269 million.  The next question is of course how high is that compared to previous years in good economic times?  BLS data can show that also, but eyeballing the graph it seems to me that somewhere around 4.0 - 4.5 million would be the normal value for the present year if the economy was relatively healthy.

      You can pull up a lot of monthly and history stats HERE.  That's how I got this timeline for "total employed part time for economic reasons" (numbers are in thousands):

       photo ptworkersMay2014.jpg

      I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

      by Satya1 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:14:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  a little above replacement (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    not bad.

    In reality, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing. - Rousseau, The Social Contract, note 5

    by James Allen on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:11:26 AM PDT

  •  Considering that these reports always suck (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JJ In Illinois, METAL TREK

    this month's level of suckitude isn't bad.

  •  A good report (13+ / 0-)

    As the boomers continue to exit the labor force, we will see the unemployment rate fall AND wages start to rise again.  Here is a great breakdown of those not in the labor force by reason: Macroblog

    •  You must be incredibly dizzy... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...with all of the spinning that you do in the comments in these incisive monthly jobs report posts by MB.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:05:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bob has a sad.n/t (7+ / 0-)

      Obama 2012

      by jiffypop on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:28:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not really...I just read the diary by MB... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan should try doing that--I know, it's a stretch, when mockery without factual basis is so much easier to do, by folks such as yourself--and I'm considering the totality of what MB's reporting. Of course, one's shallow understanding of a subject generates shallow commentary. Garbage-in-garbage-out.

        Perhaps you should checkout another blog--one where trickle-down economics and not-so-subtle left-bashing tacitly rules the day, of late, along with generous fealty provided to our securities markets and the corporatocracy--to discuss matters among like-minded individuals?

        Then again, I guess you're pretty comfortable right here, aren't you?

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:18:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

      The reduction in the employment participation rate due to the boomer's retiring is going to have some positive effects.  But there are bound to be some negative effects too - such as reduced tax revenue for example.  It's also part of the challenge of having fewer paying into FICA while more receive benefits from it.

      I love that data you linked to.  There is a lot going on under the major numbers of the jobs reports these days.

      I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

      by Satya1 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 12:32:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm disappointed you are still (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheLizardKing, SilverOz

    passing along that EPI data.  Their methodology is clearly counting many people who retired as "missing workers".

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:26:44 AM PDT

    •  Really? (10+ / 0-)

      I'm quite pleased to see that I'm actually included in this methodology.

      I'm in that huge block of women over 55 who are unemployed. Looks like there are more than a million of us. There are almost twice as many women in that cohort as men in the same age range. Also almost as many women in that cohort as women in the "normal" working age ranges.

      And no, we didn't all just retire because we have someone to take care of us or the funds to take care of ourselves. We are just stuck out here barely getting by, trying to hold on until we reach Social Security age. Younger women who are unemployed might still be stay-at-home moms, but not those of us over 55. We just stay at home.

      This chart actually takes into account that there are still people out there -- like me -- who have lost their jobs and are still unemployed after many years.

      It clearly shows the ageism that everyone wants to deny.

      "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

      by Brooke In Seattle on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:48:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does anyone really deny ageism anymore? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'm in IT and well over 55.  And, damn glad to have a job.

        But, if I were to lose this job,  I have no illusions that I would be able to find work anywhere.  I wouldn't even try to compete with the young workers willing to work 60 hour weeks for half pay.

        I would have to start my own consulting business or simply collect unemployment for a while.

      •  Did you read and understand the methodology? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilverOz, TheLizardKing, benamery21

        The EPI data doesn't count ALL retired workers.  It is based on 2007 projections that "assumed a healthy labor market over the period in question, 2006–2016, so the projected participation rate changes reflect purely non-cyclical factors (e.g., the impact of retiring baby boomers)."

        In other words, their graphs are based on poor assumptions, projections and a few calculations.  Meanwhile, there are other datasets available that actually measure people who are retiring from the surveys and thus are more accurate.

        Retirement is a more complex event and stat than other ways people leave the labor market.  It is significant enough to be noted so that there is less confusion about what the stats mean.

        And I love MB, but IMO he should find better data that conveys a more accurate picture than this EPI stuff.

        I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

        by Satya1 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:28:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (4+ / 0-)

          The macroblog post I linked to above actually uses the Census survey data to show where those who left the workforce have actually gone (and why).  The data (not extrapolations like EPI) clearly show that very little of the decline in the labor force part rate is from truly discouraged workers.  What EPI is essentially doing is trying to call those that are caregivers, homemakers, students, and disabled as "missing", which is very misleading.  The data now exists and they should be using it.

          •  What percentage of those additional... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Egalitare, YucatanMan, benamery21

            ...16 to 24 year olds do you think would be out of the workforce if the economy were strong? That percentage has been dropping for a long time pre-dating the Great Recession, but the rate is still very high. What percentage of those homemakers would actually be at home if the economy were strong. What percentage of people 51-62 would be in the "disabled" category if the economy were strong?

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:45:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nothing more than wishful thinking (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              That's why we have actual data instead of EPI's laughable extrapolations.  You are trying to assume that those kids would rather be working than getting an education for the future or that those older disabled Americans are faking it.  The reality is that we have actual data of reasons for people leaving the labor force and we don't need an extrapolation like the one EPI attempted.  

              •  I am assuming that the much steeper... (4+ / 0-)

                ...drop over the past seven years in the younger age groups in the labor force is not solely because of wanting to get an education, especially since many of the absentees have not enrolled, but rather because jobs are scarce for that cohort, and that some portion of the number on disability in their 50s are using that as a bridge until they get to 62 and can collect the lowest level of Social Security benefits since ageism makes it difficult for people in that cohort to find a job if they are laid off.

                As I've said many times, there is no doubt that baby boomer retirements are going to be a huge factor in the next 20 years. But, in the past, I've been told right on this blog that most or almost all the labor force drop is due to retirements. The Federal Reserve Bank's macroblog you link to shows this not to be the case.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:14:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Recently almost all are retirements (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  This Philly Fed Study shows that about 80% of those dropping out in the last two years are retirements, with much of the rest being older disabled workers.

                  From that Macroblog post I cited:
                  "In total, the number of people not in the labor force rose by 12.6 million (16 percent) from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2013. About 5.5 million more people (a 16 percent increase) are retired, 2.9 million (a 23 percent increase) are disabled or ill, and 2.5 million (a 19 percent increase) are in school. An additional 161,000 are taking care of their family or house, and an additional 99,000 are not in the labor force for other reasons. The fraction who say they want a job has risen the most (32 percent) but has contributed only 11 percent to the total change. "

    •  many are not retiring voluntarily. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, YucatanMan, benamery21

      In reality, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing. - Rousseau, The Social Contract, note 5

      by James Allen on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:03:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheLizardKing, virginislandsguy

        But many are.  Retirements are more complex and occur for more complex reasons and I think as part of the data needs to be singled out.

        The EPI methodology does not report all retirements - only those that were more than the ones in their 2007 projection of retirements.

        Their methodology just makes for some charts that are more confusing for understanding the reasons workers are "missing".

        I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

        by Satya1 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:31:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  That great lost opportunity (6+ / 0-)

    at month 28.

    Had we continued the momentum given by the census hiring with a massive infrastructure program, we could have reverted to the mean about 40 months earlier than we did.

    Instead, we had to bail out the goddamn banks.

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:51:07 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for all the breakdowns, MB (0+ / 0-)

    I looked at the BLS site in the links, but I could not find a breakdown of full-time vs part-time in the new jobs numbers.  Have you seen that anywhere?

  •  I offer no quarter... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern right wingers, their talking points, or their economic concerns over the lethargic recovery.  They're hypocrites, for one, and primarily responsible for the economic anemia, anyway.

    Amongst those of us with like minds, however, these numbers suck.

    •  Well, no... (0+ / 0-)

      ...these numbers don't suck.  But they're also not really great, either.  Just middlin' good.

      In essence, we seem to be getting the same sort of recovery and job growth that we saw at the peak of what the right claimed as being the "Bush boom".  Sadly, that means that by the standards of the past 14 years, the number of jobs created this month and last month actually looks pretty good.  By pre-2000 standards for a recovery, they only look okay.

      If Democrats proclaim the the Earth is round and Republicans insist it is flat, we will shortly see a column in the Washington Post claiming the the earth is really a semi-circle.

      by TexasTom on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:08:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Things are really picking up (0+ / 0-)

    I am self-employed in an economically sensitive field, and the last three months have been busy. Lots of new orders from businesses who had been reluctant to spend before. And all the freelancers and contractors who do work for me are really busy, too.

    I know this is only anecdotal, but things feel a lot better from where I'm sitting. I hope things accelerate enough to help all the people who have been unemployed for so long.

  •  What's still missing is the important... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Eric Nelson

    …but "profitability-challenged" tasks that fill in the gaps of a healthy society. Not just Public Sector Employment, but also many not-for-profits. Our politics is still infected with the belief that if it is important it is profitable, and too much of what we depend on to live comfortably is inherently "profit-challenged." Example: sewage disposal.

    We need to properly price waste streams…ALL waste streams (yes, I'm including Carbon), and the reason we don't is that mediocre waste management is very labor intensive and good waste management requires the addition of expertise and innovation. IOW well-educated, trained and compensated supervisors and field specialists. And just to put a fine point on this rant, we don't practice anything close to mediocre waste management.

    Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:32:25 AM PDT

  •  Another great diary on employment in these (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson, Meteor Blades

    trying times. Well documented too.

    My only point of curiosity is this: don't we also have about 15 million more people in the US now than we did in 2008?

    We've recovered to the same number of jobs as before the great recession, but since recoveries are taking so long, the change in population becomes more of a factor.

    We used to have relatively short recoveries and roughly two year "business cycles." Those days seem to be long gone.

    My opinion, true or not, is that the financial sector has been allowed to grow far too large and this results in the "mechanics" of the economy not working properly. We funnel money into the financial sector, thinking that somehow creates jobs, but it doesn't and, I don't think  ever did.

    Public money needs to go into public benefits. Infrastructure, education, health care, training and retraining. New technologies and research.

    Instead, we're propping up a perversion of riches like the world has never seen.

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 12:02:05 PM PDT

  •  Slow and steady employment growth is a sign that (0+ / 0-)

    we are in a long term recovery without a high probability of high inflation.

    "Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodilla." E. Zapata

    by Mas Gaviota on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 03:32:55 PM PDT

  •  So 5.95 milion workers sidelined.. (0+ / 0-)

    ..missing from the calculus according to EPI yet Wall Street Journal is exuberant !!

    "enjoy the show"
    ..because wall street gains are breaking records, while those missing workers that have been sidelined due to 6 years (at least) with republican slashing of government workers/jobs during a recession and unemployment insurance as one of the GOP slashings

    this poster, Wall Street's way of thumbing their noses at public workers, the New Deal in some way saying that government slashing and austerity don't hurt this country?

    As if Wall Street breaking records is what matters?

    I could have that wrong, but the article does have a rejoicing tone to it, so the choice of a national archived original WPA poster reminds me of those wall-streeters looking down from that high-rise balcony sneering at #OWS protestors.

    That 9.7% realistic unemployment figure would be cured if the "conservative" party really did  stop obstructing what this country needs - A modern day WPA

    - so instead they use it to mock, as if their austerity is doing this country good.

    The top percentile living off capital gambling sure is, but not the millions of working people missing from the BLS data
    The unemployment rate is vastly understating weakness in today’s labor market

    Thx MB

    P.S. I could be wrong about Wall Street journals intent (mocking iow's) - but why the WPA poster then? something "conservatives" are diametrically opposed to, so I don't think I am

    !!! computer fixed!! I can see the image library - so this was sort of a test too

  •  Meaningless graphs, IMHO (0+ / 0-)

    Great... we've got the same number of jobs since the Great Recession began.

    A much more meaningful measurement would be actual payroll. While the number of jobs may be back to pre-recession levels, salaries are not. Some people have had to take two (or, more horribly, three) of those newly created, but low-paying, jobs to make ends meet.

    $DIETY only knows how anyone could possibly measure this but I think it'd be a more helpful view of the health of the job market and the overall economy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site