In one fell swoop, the non-partisan budget referee slashed its deficit forecast for the current fiscal year by $203 billion from estimates made in February to $642 billion - making it the smallest budget shortfall since 2008.
The CBO said the deficit will fall to $378 billion by 2015 with no congressional action - a sharp contrast to the $1 trillion recession-driven deficits in each of President Barack Obama's first four years in office.
The revisions are driven largely by rising tax revenue from individuals and corporations as the economy sputters back to life. They also reflect stronger contributions to U.S. Treasury coffers from government-run mortgage finance groups Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB).

geojanes wrote:While it's a good data point, the decline is dependent on one-time factors: increased tax revenue from people taking gains under the old tax rates at the end of last year, which is in gov't fiscal year 2013, but in investors fiscal year of 2012. Also, the Fannie & Freddie payments in the quarter were about 70 bil. They won't be doing that every quarter, I don't expect. Still, it's better than a higher deficit.

This shows labor force participation by age cohort, indexed to January 2007. Young people–most strikingly 18 to 19, but also 20 to 24, and 25 to 35–are simply dropping out of the work force. These young Americans are not in the denominator of the headline unemployment figure. They’re the most energetic, strongest, most inventive Americans. They’re sitting on couches in the Obama economy. Su casa es la casa de su madre. It’s not because “the economy sucks,” which is the strange existential answer that even Ivy-educated twenty-somethings will give you. It is because the Obama presidency actively harms young people, and seeks to do so more every day.

On the reasons why and the methods how, more anon.

Meanwhile, N.B., the 55+ cohort has actually become more active and more involved in the labor force since January 2007.

danivon wrote:link? explanation of what the vertical axis on that graph means? - I can see that it's indexed to 100 at Jan 07, but is it of percentage participation, absolute numbers, or what?

By the way, I believe that part-time working usually increases during recessions and recoveries. It's a thing. Employers don't like to lay people off completely (as they may lose expertise and experience) but will cut hours, and when hiring may not be confident of being able to provide guaranteed full time work. People on part time jobs will look for other part time jobs if they can't find a full-time one.

It would be better if more full-time jobs were around too, but it's not just down to the government - it tends to be a feature of the economic cycles.

danivon wrote:I think there is more to it that just the current administration policies. Of course, it is expensive to make older people redundant.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I think there is more to it that just the current administration policies. Of course, it is expensive to make older people redundant.

He keeps talking about how good things are, so take it up with the Man. He ought to be trying to reverse it.

As for your weak sauce claim about part-time jobs being cyclical, why doesn't the President say that instead of crowing about jobs he's created?

Further, if you don't think businesses are responding to actual costs of Obamacare mandates, then you must think American businessmen are pretty stupid.

Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

U.S. Adds 162,000 Jobs, Continuing a Tepid Run
Unemployment Rate at 7.4%; May, June Figures Revised Down

In 2012, 36% of the nation’s young adults ages 18 to 31—the so-called Millennial generation—were living in their parents’ home, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. This is the highest share in at least four decades and represents a slow but steady increase over the 32% of their same-aged counterparts who were living at home prior to the Great Recession in 2007 and the 34% doing so when it officially ended in 2009.

A record total of 21.6 million Millennials lived in their parents’ home in 2012, up from 18.5 million of their same aged counterparts in 2007. Of these, at least a third and perhaps as many as half are college students. (In the census data used for this analysis, college students who live in dormitories during the academic year are counted as living with their parents).

Younger Millennials (ages 18 to 24) are much more likely than older ones (ages 25 to 31) to be living with their parents—56% versus 16%. Since the onset of the 2007-2009 recession, both age groups have experienced a rise in this living arrangement.