Dedicated to Deposits: Deals, Data, and Discussion
Featured Savings Rates
Featured Accounts

Long-Term Jobless And The Federal Reserve

Tuesday, September 3, 2013 - 5:07 AM
From the Wall Street Journal
If most of the dropouts are simply waiting for better times, then the labor market is significantly worse than the 7.4% unemployment rate would indicate. That, advocates of more government stimulus argue, means the Federal Reserve should keep trying to boost the economy to put the jobless back to work.

Read more (you may have to search for the article on Google to view it)

We'll probably hear more about the long-term jobless and the participation rate as the unemployment rate nears the Fed's 6.5% target. It could cause the Fed to delay rate hikes.
3
Ken TuminKen Tumin5,471 posts since
Nov 29, 2009
Rep Points: 125,600
1. Tuesday, September 3, 2013 - 6:14 AM
The article states "But if most of the dropouts are gone for good, then no amount of stimulus is likely to bring workers back."

There is a good reason for that...

“The jobs that are going away aren’t coming back,” says Andrew McAfee, principal research scientist at the Center for Digital Business at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-author of “Race Against the Machine.” “I have never seen a period where computers demonstrated as many skills and abilities as they have over the past seven years.”

Many lost middle class jobs never coming back - Itemlive.com: Business
6
ShorebreakShorebreak2,671 posts since
Apr 6, 2010
Rep Points: 14,479
2. Tuesday, September 3, 2013 - 10:59 PM
"I have never seen a period where computers demonstrated as many skills and
 abilities as they have over the past seven years.”

Check out 60 Minutes' "March of the Machines" for an eye-opening video
of this.
2
cumuluscumulus357 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 1,657
3. Wednesday, September 4, 2013 - 8:52 AM
Am I the only one old enough to remember the days in the 80's when we were told that the reason we needed send jobs overseas was that so many will be retiring in the future and there would not be enough workers to replace the retirees in the 2000's. 
2
Ally6770Ally6770930 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,706
Reply