In fairness Nelson Schwart at the New York Times probably has it about right:
Good, but hardly great.
The economy added a healthy 223,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported Thursday, but other indicators, showing wages growing slowly and jobless Americans remaining on the sidelines, painted a grayer picture.
Indeed, while the unemployment rate fell to 5.3 percent, the lowest in seven years, that was driven largely by an exodus of people from the work force, rather than more Americans finding work. Moreover, the strong job gains for April and May, which had led many analysts to predict that the economy was picking up steam, were revised downward by 60,000 jobs.
The emphasis is mine. Yes, this is the lowest the unemployment rate has been in this business cycle. It is also the lowest the labor force participation rate has been in almost 40 years. That incomes are flat is better than if they had declined but a decline in the LFPR while incomes remain flat means that the trend towards increasing income inequality is continuing if not accelerating.
Overall, I think you’d need to be pretty desperate to try to portray the June report as a good jobs report. We’re not going to build a strong economy on the basis of more sales clerks, fast food workers, and workers in subsidized industries.
What bugs me most of all about the situation is that the politicians are undoubtedly going to try to tread water right through 2016. “Not disastrous” is news good enough for them.
It seems part time job increases drove the headline jobs number, masking a substantial decrease in full time employment.
Is the Recovery Summer VI or VII? I’ve lost track.
I looked at the BLS data today – the labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds remains at historic lows.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300061
And the 55-64 cohort:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300061
And the 65 and over cohort:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU01300097
“right through 2016.”
Only 2016? I’m not expecting much of a change in political climate in Washington, and thus not much change in our economic fortunes until the next census changes the composition of Congress in 2022.
Aside from that, four years of Hilary, or 8 years of Hilary, it’s all going to look like 4 more years, or 8 more years, of Obama. Nothing to be wildly enthusiastic about, in other words. A Republican might get into the White House, I suppose, and that’d probably lead to a really big tax cut, but …. y’know, I’ve been watching Republicans cutting taxes and screaming about cutting taxes for fifty years now, and it never has as much effect on the economy as Republican economists and legislators like to claim.
To say I’m not “wildly enthusiastic” about the presidential field is an understatement. I don’t think much of any of the Republicans and I think even less of Hillary Clinton.