Page 143 of 194 FirstFirst ... 4393133141142143144145153193 ... LastLast
Results 1,421 to 1,430 of 1936

Thread: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

  1. #1421
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    When I post data I put it into context. I believe what OC is talking about is the Discouraged Workers data. That term, discouraged workers, came about in 1994 and was a way to eliminate workers from the unemployment count.
    Your problem is you don't understand much of the data you post and the data you do understand, you misrepresent. Like the discouraged workers OC mentioned; you thought the numbers you were posting were totals when they were actually cumulative. Like you not understanding the difference between nominal figures from real figures. And then there's your blatant dishonesty where you cherry-pick data that you find most favorable de la minute. Case in point, point out how there was a net gain of 23 million jobs created during Clinton's 8 years, and you insist that doesn't count because it comes from BLS's payroll data, that you have to use household survey data; but then here you are criticizing Obama for zero net jobs gained for August, even though that number comes from BLS's payroll data.

    Don't think for a moment that your dishonesty goes unnoticed by the denizens here.

  2. #1422
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Your money contributed has long been spent and now someone else is paying you. That wasn't the intent of SS and that is what makes it a ponzi scheme.
    Sounds like a bank, to me.

  3. #1423
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    The point is that WWII didn't solve anything. The economy only truly began to recover after WWII when regulations were finally relaxed.
    Not true. GDP:

    1938 -3.4
    1939 8.1
    1940 8.8
    1941 17.1
    1942 18.5
    1943 16.4
    1944 8.1
    1945 -1.1
    1946 -10.9

    GDP was way up before we even entered the war, though much of that growth was due to preperation for it.

  4. #1424
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Not true. GDP:

    1938 -3.4
    1939 8.1
    1940 8.8
    1941 17.1
    1942 18.5
    1943 16.4
    1944 8.1
    1945 -1.1
    1946 -10.9


    GDP was way up before we even entered the war, though much of that growth was due to preperation for it.
    Someone missed my point about GDP minus government spending.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  5. #1425
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    He laid out the priorities, and to tell you the truth I couldn't tell much difference from this speech and the first stimulus speech as far as what they plan to spend on,other than the language used ... It was about extending unemployment for the people that have lost jobs, I feel their pain however 2 years of government tit sucking is about enough don't you think? We heard how there are just gazillions of 'shovel ready' er, ahem, I'm sorry, "Infrastructure" jobs just waiting for the money to start....Then there is the wonderful $15 bucks a week token in tax cut that doesn't make one bit of difference in my overall budget, but gives him a way to say he cut taxes for me....pfft! give me a break.
    Sounds like you didn't watch or read the transcript then. This bill is rather different in that it boosts the payroll tax cut, gives it to the employers as well, creates an infrastructure bank (which is a bit reminiscent of China's industry bank) and focuses primarily more on actual infrastructure jobs. The Stimulus bill was largely tax cuts coupled with direct payments to states who used that money on all sorts of completely unrelated to infrastructure spending programs.

    Oh come on, be truthful, statistics can be molded, and shaped to say nearly anything anyone wants them to.
    Not the BLS data. Furthermore, his complete lack of any thinking is a sign he simply does not get it. To a rational person, the fact that the Total US working population is around 160 million suggests that the column showing that number is cumulative. Furthermore, BLS data does not mix cumulative and noncumulative unless stated. Conservative completely failed to realize this and cast it ALL as cumulative. Meaning the US population basically doubles monthly. You don't need to be a genius to figure this out. Only to have some basic critical thinking skills. He has demonstrated he does not.

    I'll admit that when the numbers start flying back and forth being used as a defense, or an argument my eyes tend to glaze a bit....Right now though I don't trust a single number from anyone! The truth of the matter if you really dug deep and searched, that you were placed on his ignore list is probably more to do with at some point being a bit of a jack ass to him, rather than your claim.
    On the contrary, right after I made the poll mocking him, he completely stopped responding to me.

    I only say that because that seems to be libs go to crutch when in debate, and a tactic that is well worn today, mockery and ridicule. You may think it funny, and biting, but in reality it is really boorish, rude, and just plain stupid.
    Mockery is only the useful tool against someone who lacks the basic maturity and intelligence to reflect upon their own refuted positions. When you cannot figure out that data is cumulative, there's little I can do for you.

    So it doesn't matter if they can't pay for it, only that people will get mad and riot like children when their desert is taken away? How about future Greek generations, I guess the current crop of dumb asses just say screw them, I want mine now!
    So basic services like police and fire should be sacrificed?

    There is also a point where your tax rate becomes burdensome, and entities look for ways to avoid paying that tax is there not? Isn't that why many companies take their money off shore?
    No not really. The notion of lower taxes as a reason for offshoring is a myth. The primary reason is labor costs. Considering how labor costs often are above 50% of costs to many businesses, where taxes are a tiny portion, it's the labor that's driving it. South East Asia for the most part has higher taxes when China, but firms are starting to vacate China because the labor costs are rising. Furthermore, people tend to ignore that Amnerica has basically socialized infrastructure. Firms ted not to go overseas because the local governments require them to put in all of the improvements. Manufacturing hasn't moved to India partially because the Indian government refuses to pay for the costs to improve roads, electricity, sewage and water. An American corporation can pay nothing for years during the startup phase and basically get all of that for dirt cheap. If they went to a 3rd world country, they'd have to pony up the cash. Offshoring for tax reasons alone is a very ignorant position to have. And before you even mention Ireland, Ireland basically socialized infrastructure costs too at the same me as shoulding the costs to educate an English Speaking, but EU integrated population. Many firms moved there because it was cheaper in taxes, closer to the EU market, they didn't have to pay for infrastructure improvements and pay was lower there compared to America and Mainland Europe.

    It is rather Twilight Zone of you to use a Corporation as your example when liberals end game today seems to be the destruction of such.

    j-mac
    It's pathetic that instead of an adult response, all you can do is label.

    Nothing you said refutes my point regarding top line growth as a sign of better governance.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #1426
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Data is what drives liberals crazy and leads to the personal attacks levied against individuals here.
    It;s amusing watching you try that line, and then be a total hypocrite about it. When I cited Texas deficit data....all you did was throw insults. You even tried to call the Republican Comptroller a Democrat.

    I can take the personal attacks up to a point but then it gets to the point of being over the top and will lead to putting someone on ignore either officially or simply ignoring their posts on the board.
    That's largely because you cannot refute their points and they make a mockery of your arguments.

    When I post data I put it into context.
    And that context is almost always wrong.

    I believe what OC is talking about is the Discouraged Workers data. That term, discouraged workers, came about in 1994 and was a way to eliminate workers from the unemployment count. I wonder if there is anyone here that believes discouraged workers aren't unemployed and shouldn't be counted?
    Way to be more dishonest here. Your argument was that you were arguing that the cumulative discouraged workers was doubling every month, ergo Obama bad. People pointed out how the chart was not cumulative. You threw insults at them rather then actually stop and think about if it was or wasn't. Furthermore, when we applied you asinine logic to the other tables, it means that the US population was doubling monthly. Did you even stop to think, hey maybe this isn't right? You were so adamant about attacking Obama that you failed to even understand the table you were citing. Sheik is right in that you do not understand the data you post.

    Now the question is the number for the month or cumulative?
    Obviously cumulative. The past months have been in the high single digits to low double digits. If it was for the month, total discouraged workers would be nearly half the population of the United States. Does that make any sense? Well, that would require you to actually stop and think about it. That ain't going to happen.

    I still am not sure but I am not sure that it really matters.
    That is appalling you still don't know.

    What matters is the labor force number and the total number employed which comes from the BLS. Regardless of what anyone thinks of BLS, it reports non partisan data,like it or not. That data didn't seem to be a problem when Clinton was in the WH so why is it a problem now?
    Nice fallacy of changing the subject. Rather than address how you cannot understand your own data... you try to change the subject. Your dishonestly knows no bounds.

    Anyway, I understand that data can cause the glazed look in some, but noticed that liberals have no problem posting data from places like the CBO even though they don't understand how CBO works. I will try to use less data but won't be communicating with those who generate personal attacks.
    Really? People you disagree with don't understand how the CBO works?

    This is rich coming from a guy who argued that BLS cumulative tables were monthly changes when it meant the US populated doubled monthly.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #1427
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Your problem is you don't understand much of the data you post and the data you do understand, you misrepresent. Like the discouraged workers OC mentioned; you thought the numbers you were posting were totals when they were actually cumulative. Like you not understanding the difference between nominal figures from real figures. And then there's your blatant dishonesty where you cherry-pick data that you find most favorable de la minute. Case in point, point out how there was a net gain of 23 million jobs created during Clinton's 8 years, and you insist that doesn't count because it comes from BLS's payroll data, that you have to use household survey data; but then here you are criticizing Obama for zero net jobs gained for August, even though that number comes from BLS's payroll data.

    Don't think for a moment that your dishonesty goes unnoticed by the denizens here.
    It's really pathetic how some people will suspend all thinking and logic when they see something they think may make a politician look bad.

    A reasonable person should have looked at the BLS data and instantly figure it was cumulative. Only a crackpot thinks that it's monthly numbers when the aggregate monthly numbers meant that discouraged workers were half of the total US population. Furthermore, the fact that total US population was in the same subset of tables is even more alarming. Does the US population double monthly? Well, that SHOULD be a rhetorical question, but given Conservative's demonstrated epic and constant failure to understand his own data, I cannot be certain.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #1428
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Oh wow, you really think that private companies wouldn't have made planes, invested in space, invested in nuclear energy, or researched new medical techniques? People don't demand these things?
    Pretty much. The upfront capital costs to actually produce commercializable aspects of those were massive. Without the government funding of applied sciences for NASA, we would not have the materials that allow civilian space projects to function. And I'm not even considering the expertise that was cultivated under decades of government space programs. Same goes for nuclear energy. And many drugs the NHS found were actually accidental, but shown a slight promise elsewhere. In a commercial drug lab, that kind of slight potential does not warrant a billion dollar investment. Basically your argument ignores that business is out to make money. It will not shoulder massive upfront costs that do not show real tangible commercial gains in a reasonable period of time. Just because people demand it doesn't mean business will provide it. There has to be profit in it.

    Yeah, taking more capital away from individuals is the best way to get more growth.
    Actually you can have increased tax revenue without increased tax rates. It's called economic activity.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #1429
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I'm not saying that it wouldn't have happened eventually, but the fact is that it did not happen without the government. While you can't say if not A therefore not B, you also can't say if not A therefore B, which is what you're trying to do.

    Would nuclear energy have been discovered without the government? Maybe. Probably. Nobody really knows for sure because it didn't happen that way.
    Well, you would have to assume that the government would have ever allowed a private program develop nuclear power, weapons, or whatever. I'm not sure how you would keep this under wraps.

  10. #1430
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Obama says he is wanting to further cut the payroll tax. (Social Security). Why is he wanting to do this? To give people more money to spend. So if we simply have to raise them later to make up for the shortage we are going to create, is that not going to curb spending?
    By that measure all tax cuts reduce purchasing power. Furthermore, purchasing power is not tied directly to the amount of money you make or have. It's how much an individual currency unit will buy. I think you are confusing your terms.

    We currently have private companies doing all of those things.
    And how many of them did it from scratch relying upon nothing from previous programs?

    Well, you would have to assume that the government would have ever allowed a private program develop nuclear power, weapons, or whatever. I'm not sure how you would keep this under wraps
    Care to tell me what firm in the 50s had a couple billions dollars in 1950s money to spend on something that could not commercialize for possibly decades?
    Last edited by obvious Child; 09-10-11 at 06:07 PM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •