>PS
>
>Did Fox mention this?
>
>
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/us-jobless-rate-falls-to-6-year-low-of-59-pct/ar-BB7eEdYI don't quote Fox. I also don't quote people who don't understand how to analyze unemployment data, and this MSN article is a good example. :)
Two things.
First, the Federal Reserve had predicted an increase in new jobs - occurring during the period where extended unemployment benefits expired. (So you can thank some of those ugly, nasty Republicans). One doesn't need a Nobel Prize in economics to know that when unemployment runs out, it's time to look harder for a job.
Second, the labor participation rate dropped. Generally speaking, when both the unemployment rate drops and the labor participation rate drops, it's not necessarily a good thing. In this case (and for some time now), the unemployment rate dropped for some of the wrong reasons. So despite more people going out and getting jobs, there are still too few looking for jobs and too high a number of part time jobs.
The labor participation rate is at the worst point in 36 years. You have a record % of people not in the labor force at all, which partly explains the decrease in the unemployment rate. Bottom line, some decomposition of the unemployment data always needs to happen.
Don't get me wrong, the news isn't all bad. Certainly more jobs being filled than expected is better than less. But this isn't much reason for "spiking the football"
