180
The Mystery of the Strong Economy Has Finally Been Solved | Turns out it wasn’t actually that strong.
(www.theatlantic.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2025
180 points (99.5% liked)
News
31365 readers
2288 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How fucked is that if you think about it. There are more jobs, but less employed people? I know the answer is that pay is so low, many people hold multiple jobs, but touting this as an achievement is perverse.
And the BLS official who published the numbers was fired because orangeboi didn’t like the numbers. Yes, really.
And look at the next couple of sentences:
Ah... I infer that with the daily economic and social chaos and confusion caused by this administration, many businesses had no idea if their own outlook was good or bad. The ones less affected would respond positively, right away so earlier data may have extrapolated from that.
Based on reporting, it looks like the BLS didn't have the staff to do the legwork anymore after the purge of the federal government, so they used various models to "guesstimate" the totals for May/June.
I feel like there are more senior job openings, but fewer entry level and mid level. At least with software, I'm seeing a lot of senior and "founding" posts. Maybe the Internet spy machine just thinks I should go for senior only, but I'd take mid level.
Same in my profession, it's all manager jobs with no staff, i.e., do all the work yourself. I'm senior level but not qualified to manage, so I just took a barely above entry level position in a vaguely related field for 1/3 of my previous salary. But there's a $5k signing bonus... because it's a very undesirable job with high turnover.
Thanks, Cheeto Mussolini!
Actually, the answer is that job growth isn't keeping up with population growth.
I think the key is that population growth is around .6% right now. So that's over $2m a year, or rather 171,000 people per month.
So assuming there were an average rate of retirements and kids getting older.. id imagine any number less than 171,000 new jobs a month will result in higher unemployment over time.
Maybe someone can point out why I'm wrong there. Could be missing something
The only thing I can think that skews the data is that everyone is born but not everyone retires, so I'm not sure you can just say those cancel out.
100k is the number usually cited for this. Not sure how that calculation is done, though.
Watch some new term be invented like "underemployed" to represent people who don't have enough jobs to survive.
Sorry to make you sad