FourFourFourSecond s uis a major theme in this year’s US presidential campaign.
It is, after all, the countrys fourth-largest single source of unemployment.
And yet, despite the fact that the US has been the biggest contributor of job loss since the Great Recession, it is only in the past six months that it has seen a sharp decline.
In October, for instance, the unemployment rate dropped by 1.2 percentage points.
This is the lowest level of joblessness since the recession began.
In November, the rate dropped again to 1.1 per cent.
So why is the unemployment number falling?
What explains it?
The US has had a relatively strong job market.
In the last year, the jobless rate has fallen by 0.7 percentage points and the number of jobs created by businesses has increased by 2.1 million.
This has led to a fall in the unemployment gap between the unemployed and the job-seekers.
That has led the US to see an unemployment rate that is below its historical average of 4.4 per cent and a labour force participation rate that has held steady at 73 per cent for most of this decade.
But this has come with a cost.
Unemployment has become increasingly stressful.
The recession has hit the job market harder than ever.
The unemployment rate has been declining for six months in a row and it has dropped to below 4 per cent in some states.
In other words, the economy is in a better position to absorb the losses than it was when the recession was at its peak.
But it has also seen job losses in some other areas, including construction, healthcare, retail and construction.
In all, nearly 30 million people have lost their jobs.
The problem is that the job losses are being concentrated among a small group of workers, often younger people, in a narrow range of industries.
Some of these jobs have been lost because the companies that employed them have closed or they have gone out of business.
Others are being lost because there has been no new construction to replace them.
In short, the jobs lost in the last recession are not evenly distributed across the population.
Some jobs are being absorbed by younger workers and others by older workers, with more concentrated and costly losses.
This means that the labour force is not being evenly distributed and, therefore, the labour market is not providing sufficient job opportunities for people.
There are three main reasons for this.
The first is that, despite being able to pay workers more, the majority of those who lose their jobs are not getting the full amount.
They are getting less than the minimum wage.
Many of these people are younger, college-educated people, and the gap between their pay and the minimum wages is often large.
For instance, many of those people working in the construction industry were in their early 20s when the construction boom ended and the unemployment benefits began to kick in.
Some had only recently completed their post-secondary education and were therefore not yet well prepared to cope with rising unemployment and to adjust to higher wages.
This group is also likely to be disproportionately impacted by the cost of healthcare and other essential benefits.
The second problem is the level of pay, which is much higher than the unemployment compensation, and it is being paid disproportionately to older workers.
For example, those older workers who are still in the workforce are being paid an average of $8.63 an hour more than the average wage for all workers aged 25 to 54.
This gap in pay means that these older workers are being put in an economic position that they will not be able to adapt to.
The third factor is the extent to which people are not being paid the full wage.
It seems likely that the real number of people who are being left out of the recovery is much lower than the official unemployment rate.
The official unemployment figure is based on a series of measures of wage growth, including changes in wages paid to hourly workers and changes in their hours worked.
However, these measures are based on an incomplete picture of the economy, which does not take into account the effects of unemployment insurance, temporary layoff notices and other labour market interventions.
They do not take account of the effects on people’s hours, which may be higher or lower than what is being recorded in the official statistics.
There is a growing consensus that the true unemployment rate is much, much higher.
For the past few years, the Federal Reserve has been increasingly confident that the official rate of unemployment is closer to 4.5 per cent than 4.0 per cent, and so it is now publishing monthly data on the state of the US labour market.
The US labour-market picture is very different from the official picture.
The Federal Reserve recently reported that the unemployment numbers are not as bad as the official figure suggests.
The real unemployment rate was 4.7 per cent as of the end of March, down from 4.8 per cent the previous month and down from 5.1 percentage