• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
the makeout hobo said:
Now con, there's an amazing concept I'm going to explain to you. When you make a claim about facts, you back up the claim with a link to facts. Otherwise, I have no idea whether you're making things up or not. I at least have linked to sources for my claims. If you look at the graph I posted, the peak job loss for 81-82 was about 3%, vs over 6% in this one. We're in a much deeper hole, here. Or is there another metric you deem more indicative of how bad a recession was?

Personal anecdotes have no place in a dispute about facts.
Click to expand...

Aw, gee, you would do that for me? Thanks so much but I prefer the non partisan BLS.gov, BEA.gov, U.S. Treasury sites. Suggest you better start learning about those sites if you are going to try and be credible which it doesn't appear that you are.

Were you working during the 81-82 recession?

BLS data so your chart is absolutely wrong

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
 
the makeout hobo said:
I refuse to believe your numbers until you link to a source for your numbers. I'm going to say employment was a bazillion jobs. Prove me wrong. Also, like I said, the current drop is due to GOP backed spending cuts.
Click to expand...

BLS.gov, Home, employment, top picks and pick your chart
 
Tettsuo said:
If you're going to vote for a Republican, you will be voting for the exact same economic playbook Bush worked from. So yeah, you will be voting for Bush in 2012.
Click to expand...

Yep, 9.9 trillion GDP to 14.4 trillion GDP in 8 years. I can live with that
 
Conservative said:
Aw, gee, you would do that for me? Thanks so much but I prefer the non partisan BLS.gov, BEA.gov, U.S. Treasury sites. Suggest you better start learning about those sites if you are going to try and be credible which it doesn't appear that you are.
Click to expand...
Again, LINK TO WHERE YOU GET YOUR DATA.

Were you working during the 81-82 recession?
Click to expand...
Personal anecdotes are irrelevent.

BLS data so your chart is absolutely wrong

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
Click to expand...

Prove it's BLS data. I think you're making numbers up.
 
Conservative said:
BLS.gov, Home, employment, top picks and pick your chart
Click to expand...

Not how it works. I think you're lying and making up numbers, it's up to you to prove otherwise. Besides, there's no context what your latest chart is referring to. Is that 8.4 increase in latin pop stars?
 
Conservative said:
Put the averages side by side, Sheik, and then ask the 25+ million unemployed and under employed, or the 16.7% black unemployed if they care about the percentage change between Bush and Obama?

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.1 9.1
Click to expand...
Can you break this out by government jobs and private sector jobs?
One of the reasons the jobs report is so bad is because state and local governments are shedding jobs.
 
Conservative said:
Employment during the Obama Administration, January 2009 142.2 million employed, August 2011 139.6. U-6 unemployment 16.2%. Spin the actual numbers?

2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888 139206
2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334 139296 139627
Click to expand...

Alright...

August 2011 was better than August 2009.

Unemployment has flatlined; it hasn't gotten any better but neither has it gotten any worse by the numbers.

Based on August 2011 figures alone it looks like an uptick might be on the horizon.

And if we're going to play the "which political party controlled Congress when and what was the economic effect" game, Republicans have controlled Congress since January of this year. Should we blame them for the jobs numbers not improving since they ran on a platform of job creation but instead it appears they're doing everything they can to kill job growth?

Two can play at that game, Mister.
 
Conservative said:
Sorry, that is bull****, 10.8%unemployment, 20 misery index, 17.5% + mortgate rates and it started in July 1981 ended in Nov. 1982 due to a pro growth economic policy.
Click to expand...
10.8% unemployment is worse than th 14% unemployment Bush handed Obama?
 
Objective Voice said:
Alright...

August 2011 was better than August 2009.

Unemployment has flatlined; it hasn't gotten any better but neither has it gotten any worse by the numbers.

Based on August 2011 figures alone it looks like an uptick might be on the horizon.

And if we're going to play the "which political party controlled Congress when and what was the economic effect" game, Republicans have controlled Congress since January of this year. Should we blame them for the jobs numbers not improving since they ran on a platform of job creation but instead it appears they're doing everything they can to kill job growth?

Two can play at that game, Mister.
Click to expand...

Obama spent over a trillion dollars to generate those numbers, shouldn't they be better? Labor force dropping, net job loss, fewer employed, U-6 is 16.2%. That your idea of success?

As for control of Congress, obviously you don't even know what Congress is if you believe Republicans control it. Better stop while way behind. Let another liberal here explain it to you.
 
the makeout hobo said:
My position is that the republicans and republican pressure is largely to blame for the poor job growth. Let's look at some more recent numbers, conservative.

Jobs created, per thousands, by month

Jan 68
Feb 235
Mar 194
Apr 217 (GOP threatens to shutdown gov., gets major spending cuts)
May 53
Jun 20
Jul 85 (may-jul: spending cuts take effect, GOP holds debt ceiling raise hostage, gets more spending cuts)
Aug 0 (GOP wins even more spending cuts)


So it seems to me, that the GOP's crusade for spending cuts is doing some harm to the economy. Now, I'll do something Conservative never does: give a source for my numbers!

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PAYEMS.txt
Click to expand...

I'm just going to post this again, as my evidence that the current drop in employment is due to Republican antics. I mean, what do we expect when one party is so fanatical that they'll oppose disaster relief to get what they want?
 
Conservative said:
Employment during the Obama Administration, January 2009 142.2 million employed, August 2011 139.6. U-6 unemployment 16.2%. Spin the actual numbers?

2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888 139206
2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334 139296 139627
Click to expand...
Those numbers are bull****, Con. Why do you keep posting false information?

Here are the actual numbers -- notice how different they are from yours in 2009 and 2010.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

How many more warnings do you need to stay away from numbers because you're making a fool of yourself, until you heed such generous advice?
 
iamitter said:
There are jobs available. Its not the employers' faults that the people out of work don't have the skills needed for them. It's not Obama's, either. Until those people smarten up, we're likely to see this high of an unemployment for quite some time. I've been saying that this is likely to be the new normal since I joined this board. The government's done about as much as it can to fix this. The government won't fix this and neither will the free market. It'll either be death or the changing of human nature. I'm not sure which will come sooner :shrug:
Click to expand...

I don't see it as the private sector or the gov't's fault, but there ARE things that both can do help. The problem is a skills mismatch, the solution is a better education system that should involve cooperation between the private sector and the government, like technical schools.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I'm just going to post this again, as my evidence that the current drop in employment is due to Republican antics. I mean, what do we expect when one party is so fanatical that they'll oppose disaster relief to get what they want?
Click to expand...

I gave you the link to BLS, hope you enjoy the cite which will help your credibility which isn't too good right now
 
the makeout hobo said:
Umm... where are you getting 16.2 from?
Click to expand...

U-6 unemployment, good luck learning the BLS site. Unemployment plus discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force and aren't counted in the official number
 
Sidenote: You miss me, debatepolitics? I'm glad to be back!
 
Conservative said:
Obama spent over a trillion dollars to generate those numbers, shouldn't they be better? Labor force dropping, net job loss, fewer employed, U-6 is 16.2%. That your idea of success?

As for control of Congress, obviously you don't even know what Congress is if you believe Republicans control it. Better stop while way behind. Let another liberal here explain it to you.
Click to expand...

Oh, wow...pardon me for getting a year wrong. Atleast I'm not the one posting unemployment figures that aren't based on facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom