The context is that that the black unemployment rate has increased 25% while the comparable rate for whites is flat.
If you can’t find the surge depicted there no one can help you, because everything to some is viewed through their orange colored glasses.
For some reason, the Golden Age is not working out for Black Americans.
Both rates remain stubbornly below the lower bound—twitching above historic lows.
What do you consider the “lower bound” of unemployment?
Orange colored glasses 
Maybe, but how would you account for the surge now instead of back when it was happening?
gonna add “massive” to nyt title now. not… enough…narrative… lol
i bet you work fir the “news…”
umkayyy…..
1 Like
I knew it was BS.
1 Like
Not me, statistics.
Statistically 9.7% is the lower bound.
Anything between 9.7 and 13% black unemployment is “normal.”
7.5% is “well below normal.”
The increase (from 6% to 7.5%") is noteworthy, perhaps even newsworthy. But the proper context is
“Remains massively below its usual rates.”
“This time, the Trump administration’s assault on diversity programs and cuts to the federal work force could make it even more difficult for Black workers to recover when conditions improve.”
which that so-called journalist wrote, is not worthy of a sophomore term paper.
1 Like
Interesting. So what’s the “lower bound” on white unemployment?
It’s still carney in coal mine.
1 Like
So what do we make of the of the 40 some odd states with an unemployment rate below your definition of lower bound?
Mmmmmm
1 Like
Oh great, dragging the Canadians into this. 
Well, when unemployment gets this low
it tends to rocket upwards.
It is best taken as a sign “Then economy is in an unsustainable bubble and bubbles tend to pop all at once.”
In fact, if unemployment moves sideways for a year or so,
then Donald Trump should be awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.
2 Likes
“They are in an employment bubble” comes to mind.