The unemployment rate is not a good metric. The labor force participation rate is more inclusive, and declined for the 2nd month in a row.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/business/economy/jobs-repo...

Furthermore the quality of available jobs appears to have declined.

News media ought to pay more attention to the confidence intervals associated with these metrics. Uncertainty is always present in statistics and the revisions to these numbers rarely get reported (it was reported in this case to fit the tone of the story). News articles like these have a powerful psychological effect on the public, so shouldn't the media do a more responsible job by saying "oh by the way, it's 38,000 jobs +- 50,000"?

For the curious, alternative measures of labor underutilization

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

This doesn't worry me so much on it's own. You have to contrast it with new unemployment rates.

Well, that's worrisome. The hiring rate, along with new unemployment benefit applications and various other stats is the an early indicator for the macro economy.

Got laid off yesterday. Hooray.

For a bit of perspective, see "Payroll Employment: Best Years, Worst Month"[0]

Non-Farm Payroll: Best Years, Worst Month

Year Annual (000s) Worst Month (000s)

1984 3,880 128

1994 3,851 200

1983 3,458 -308

1997 3,408 -39

1988 3,242 94

1999 3,177 107

1987 3,153 171

1998 3,047 124

1996 2,825 -18

1993 2,817 -49

2014 2,5851 142

2005 2,506 67

1985 2,502 124

2013 2,331 84

2012 2,236 88

1995 2,159 -16

2006 2,085 2

2011 2,083 70

2004 2,033 32

12014 is the hiring pace through August.

[0]http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/09/payroll-employment...

We really need is more immigration here. That will fix all of our problems.