United States economy adds 74K jobs; rate falls to 6.7 pct.

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Justmythoughts Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 1:35 p.m.

    With all of the people dropping out of the job market....soon the unemployment rate will be zero!

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    With 90 million unemployed how does Obama reconcile that the economy is improving given these latest jobs numbers.......Rush has received his wish, OBAMA is truly a FAILURE!

  • Spoc Ogden, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    Everyone acknowledges that the unemployment rate is misleading for a poor economy that persists longer than the unemployment comp. Who is going to report continued unemployment if there is nothing to be gained by doing so? And it totally excludes those who in desperation are "underemployed". If a person is subsisting on two or more part time jobs, is he counted twice as employed?

    At the current rate of population growth, the US would have to add 170,000 jobs a month just to break even. A search for the Labor Force Participation Rate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics yields an interactive graph that can be extended all the way back to 1948. The rate of participation began increasing about 1965 as more women began working outside the home. During the Reagan years it continued to climb, then held fairly steady during the terms of Bush, Clinton, and Bush, between 66 and 67 percent. Beginning in 2009, and continuing today, there has been a steep steady downward drop to 62.8%. For all the debt we have been accumulating "stimulating the economy", it doesn't seem to have turned things around at all, but has instead been getting rapidly steadily worse.

    Time for a new approach?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 11, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    Our federal government is absolutely corrupted from the White House on down! Which is what happens if there is no accountability! Nothing that comes from the federal government should be trusted!

  • Kaotic USA, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    Well we know a couple of things...Obama Care didn't make health care any more affordable. It just gave high risk people, who didn't qualify before, health care at a ridiculous price. Meanwhile the rest of us are paying at the same rate as before or higher. When it comes to the unemployment rate, there is certainly some underhandedness and fuzzy math on the part of the
    Federal Government. When your own government is corrupt, then nothing will get better and it certainly hasn't except for the corporate beneficiaries of the corruption...

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:12 p.m.

    Sorry that should read "the better question..."

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 6:52 p.m.

    @say no
    "why the media is fixated on bad data and continues to ignore the more significant issues." they are focused on reporting the same data that has been used to report unemployment since such data was first collected to measure, across many decades and presidents, they better question is why do you want Obama to answer to a different set of rules then any past president?

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 5:06 p.m.


    OK, it's getting late in the day and you haven't responded, so I'll answer my little quiz above after your snide remark concerning math. It isn't about math. The reason the unemployment went down is basically stated in the 3rd paragraph where it mentions the number of people who have dropped off the unemployment rolls. Many of those people are still unemployed, but just not counted anymore. Therefore we have a drop in the rate. Maybe Obama should just pass an executive order that says anyone unemployed more than three months is no longer counted. Then we would have about 1% unemployment. And then his supporters can then brag about what a great president he is having the best employment numbers in history. Good idea?

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 2:22 p.m.


    As I figure it, the only way an unemployment rate can go down is either by creating MORE jobs, or by having LESS jobs to be unemployed from, or by REDUCING the labor force or the amount of people looking for a job. Do you see another way? I'd be happy to listen.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 1:44 p.m.

    There are other concerns about this "data".
    Why was the ADP report a couple of days ago so wrong?
    Why are there significant adjustments made to the numbers months later?
    Perhaps the more important question is why the media is fixated on bad data and continues to ignore the more significant issues of long-term unemployed people and the underemployed/part times workers? The middle class has been devastated by the recession and the press seems to buy the White House hype that happy days are here again.

  • JMHO Southern, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    When someone asks "why do I have to learn math?" Remember this article and happy's comment. That's your answer.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    Let's see if I understand this story. The job creation for December was the worst in three years. The stock market is down because of a disappointing jobs report. And yet the unemployment rate drops to 6.7%. OK. What's wrong with this (Obama) picture.