Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
New job numbers
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SlugSlinger" data-source="post: 3007032" data-attributes="member: 7248"><p>If you want to argue that, they are but with an inverse relationship. How can the labor participation rate set record lows (the number of people working compared to the population) under obama and the unemployment rate be a 4%ish? That means less people are working but the number of people being counted as employed is going up. Essentially, the number that is most meaningful is the labor participation rate not the unemployment rate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SlugSlinger, post: 3007032, member: 7248"] If you want to argue that, they are but with an inverse relationship. How can the labor participation rate set record lows (the number of people working compared to the population) under obama and the unemployment rate be a 4%ish? That means less people are working but the number of people being counted as employed is going up. Essentially, the number that is most meaningful is the labor participation rate not the unemployment rate. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
New job numbers
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom