Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
And how many
times can a
man turn his
head, and
pretend that
he just
doesn`t see?

STUPID
is
as
TSF
Does
An island of
Sanity
In a sea of
Insanity


Mirt!
Mirt!
Mirt!
Thank you
for taking
out the
dirt!

AMERICA
LOVE IT
OR
FIX IT


Wherever
you go,
there
you are

Check out
all the stickies
on Grovelbot's
Big Board!

question everything

(50,825 posts)
Mon Aug 18, 2025, 02:26 PM Monday

This number is bad news for the economy - Mark Zandi, WaPo

The unemployment rate has historically been the go-to barometer for the economy’s performance. At just over 4 percent, unemployment remains low, and it has edged only a bit higher since the start of the year. Taken at face value, the economy is doing just fine.

But it’s not. If the labor force had increased this year at the pace it did last year, the unemployment rate would be headed toward 5 percent. Of course, low unemployment is great, but only if it is due to lots of new jobs, not an evaporating labor force.

And the labor force, which includes all those working and looking for work, is sounding the recession alarm bell. It has flatlined so far this year. Compare this with last year, when the labor force grew by well over 1 million workers, or the year before, when it increased by almost 2.5 million. Without more workers, it is tough for the economy to grow: A recession is more likely.

It’s no mystery what ails the labor force; it is the severe restrictions on immigration. The surge in undocumented immigrants that occurred during much of the Biden administration undoubtedly put financial and societal pressures on many communities across the country. However, many of these immigrants quickly applied for work authorization, received it and started a job less than a year after arriving.

(snip)

A labor force flat on its back has many implications — none of them good. It means disruptions to businesses that rely on immigrant labor. Agriculture and construction are especially vulnerable, but manufacturing, transportation, hospitality, retail, and child and elder care also depend critically on immigrants. Without these workers, labor costs will increase, adding to the inflation fueled by the tariffs. This is a compelling reason for the Federal Reserve to be cautious in resuming its interest rate cuts, and once it does, to go slowly.

(snip)

Given the current immigration policy, it seems increasingly unlikely that the moribund labor force will come back to life soon, and more likely that a recession is dead ahead.

https://wapo.st/45Fc3cQ

free



5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
This number is bad news for the economy - Mark Zandi, WaPo (Original Post) question everything Monday OP
It's a toxic mess bucolic_frolic Monday #1
Those data manipulations started in the 80s with G HW Bush IbogaProject Monday #2
Link please. And not to Shadowstats. progree Monday #3
It was revised in 1994 IbogaProject Monday #4
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in that where they go over the 1994 changes or that supports progree Tuesday #5

bucolic_frolic

(52,001 posts)
1. It's a toxic mess
Mon Aug 18, 2025, 07:22 PM
Monday

GDP down, unemployment down, payrolls down, consumption down, prices up.

By design the wheels are coming off everything, that's why they replaced the statisticians with their own tools.

IbogaProject

(4,828 posts)
2. Those data manipulations started in the 80s with G HW Bush
Mon Aug 18, 2025, 09:36 PM
Monday

Before the late 80s everyone who wanted to work was counted in the labor supply. As offshoring began they started to remove people after 18 or so months unemployed which basically hides the nature of underemployment.

progree

(12,240 posts)
5. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in that where they go over the 1994 changes or that supports
Tue Aug 19, 2025, 12:33 AM
Tuesday
"everyone who wanted to work was counted in the labor supply."

-or-

"As offshoring began they started to remove people after 18 or so months unemployed which basically hides the nature of underemployment."

I read this at your link

Since 1945, the official definition has been that to be considered unemployed, you must not only not have a job but be available for work (i.e., not too sick to work) and have actively looked for a job in the past four weeks. If you’re neither employed nor, according to the official definition, unemployed, you’re not considered part of the labor force.


I once had this debate about the Clinton-era changes back in 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141009906#post67

Thanks for the link
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Economy»This number is bad news f...