But, like lentinel, I do have to ask: what kinds of jobs at what kinds of wages with what kinds of benefits?  I have read on more than one occasion that those who are fortunate enough to go back to work at the same kind of job they had before they were laid off are not making the same kind of money or getting the same kinds of benefits they were, so not only have they suffered the economic loss of an extended period of unemployment, but they may never catch up to where they were.  

People who drained their savings, raided their retirement accounts - if they were lucky enough to have either - and racked up more charges on their credit cards - these people have nothing to cushion them against future economic downturns, and since their earnings are behind where they were, they have less ability to begin to build any kind of cushion.

The states are tapped out, so the so-called safety net is fraying, badly, and isn't going to be able to weather another downturn.

Is it good to be working and making money?  Absolutely.  A job beats an unemployment check almost any day of the week.

But when conditions are such that people can't get ahead financially, no matter how hard they work, we're establishing a huge underclass that's accepted lower wages, greater productivity requirements, reduced benefits as the best this economy can offer them.  They're expected to be grateful, and to learn to live with constant fear that it's going to be pulled out from under them.

Employers kind of like the fear factor - they can demand more, give less in return and handsomely reward themselves and investors.

Republicans have no answers that have ever been proven to work; Democrats have to hope that continuing to essentially do nothing will keep the numbers moving in their favor - and pray that Europe doesn't collapse like a house of cards.  If Dems move toward implementing austerity, they can probably kiss all this "progress" goodbye.

++++++++
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to grasp the fudging the BLS has been doing every month for years now in order to bring the unemployment rate lower: the BLS constantly lowers the labor force participation rate as more and more people "drop out" of the labor force for one reason or another. While there is some floating speculation that this is due to early retirement, this is completely counterfactual when one also considers the overall rise in the general civilian non institutional population. In order to back out this fudge we are redoing an analysis we did first back in August 2010, which shows what the real unemployment rate would be using a realistic labor force participation rate. To get that we used the average rate since 1980, or ever since the great moderation began. As it happens, this long-term average is 65.8% (chart 1). We then apply this participation rate to the civilian noninstitutional population to get what an "implied" labor force number is, and additionally calculate the implied unemployed using this more realistic labor force. We then show the difference between the reported and implied unemployed (chart 2). Finally, we calculate the jobless rate using this new implied data. It won't surprise anyone that as of December, the real implied unemployment rate was 11.4% (final chart) - basically where it has been ever since 2009 - and at 2.9% delta to reported, represents the widest divergence to reported data since the early 1980s. And because we know this will be the next question, extending this lunacy, America will officially have no unemployed, when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5%, which should be just before the presidential election.

It's funny, when the unemployment number increases, it is an accurate reflection of what's happening with the job market.

When it decreases it is either (i) manipulated by  the government, (ii) not reflective of any material good news, or (iii) just a meaningless stat.  The twisting being done in the comments to make this neutral or slightly bad news is astounding.

As the Times reported, "The department also estimated that the economy lost 2,689,000 jobs in the month."

So a lot of what we are being told is related to "seasonal adjustments"...

I am hoping for many more jobs. If this is real it is good news for us.

But what was surprising in this latest round is that for the first time in my memory they went back and adjusted the Birth-Deal Model, which are imaginary jobs in the first place!