So, straight in line with expect, really! Now for longer trends.
(please log in to view the image)
So, unemployment participation- could be better, but improving and on a good course.
Now, what about those employed?
Wages are growing faster than inflation, but at a slow rate, and it's steady at that rate, not accelerating. Should be better, but we're still in the positive.
What about work hours, part time vs full?
(please log in to view the image)
So continuing on this path would be good, but we're definitely still in major growth here, so that's fine.
There's also been a decline in employment-to-population ratio that peaked at 62.7 percent, fell to 58.2 percent, and then a small rebound began, increasing up to 59.4. This is attributed to several things- part of which is baby boomers retiring, part of which is people staying in college, but part of which is simply a sign that there's room for continued improvement in the economy- no surprise there, though it may also be a sign of longer trends which won't change even if the economy gets better.
So, a positive but mixed bag, most numbers are definitely in the good range and/or heading in a good direction, but there's also a 'room for improvement' on most.
Oh yes, and a final note: Last presidential election, Newt Gingrich promised to get gas down to 2.50 a gallon, Romney promised unemployment down to 6% (which even by the more conservative measurement criteria like Gallup uses has us at). Gas is 2.42 a gallon and Employment is 5.1%. Neither spelled out plans on how exactly they were going to achieve this, but it's kinda funny how Obama beat even their pie in the sky promises.
Unions help income *noticeably* compared to states with anti-union laws, and Obama has taken action to try and help- but right now not too much is being done, which is likely for the reason for that 'only a little faster than inflation' number above.
Your own article states that the major contributing factor to that number is old people (read: boomers) retiring and no longer wanting/needing to work.
That isn't unemployment. You have to want to work and be unable to get a job in order to be unemployed.
The article also lists unemployment as being 5.5%.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Thus my confusion. I have the unemployment rate peaking at 10% back in 2009.
I'm a bit confused by the terminology in your link. If 93 million didn't "make specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week," what exactly does that mean, and what's the difference between that and unemployment? It seems impossible for literally 50% of the population to be without work, so it's an odd concept to consider.
You'll notice that it does not state anywhere in the article that there are 93 million unemployed people. The article states that there are 93 million people not in the work force, which isn't the same thing.
Because 16 year olds and retired baby boomers aren't classified as "unemployed".
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Well, there's context to consider. Because, for example, I wouldn't consider a retired person or 16-year-old in the same class as, say, a 35-year-old who doesn't have a day job. Does it also consider minors under the age of 16? That seems an arbitrary cutoff point to me.
Also, the root source of the data for your article is the same site I just linked. Methinks there's a real difference between unemployment and what you're talking about.
No, we'd go down to about 5.1%, which is what unemployment is right now. Any number is higher than the ideal, of course, but it's lower than it's been in a while (since early 2008, before the recession).
Wall Street is a bit of an abstract entity. At the risk of repeating myself, source? I can't exactly search for "Wall Street angry at job numbers" and expect to get anything.