Page 84 of 199 FirstFirst ... 3474828384858694134184 ... LastLast
Results 831 to 840 of 1989

Thread: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

  1. #831
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,807

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by randel View Post
    and yet again, the word 'union' comes up in your response...just admit it and be honest, what happened would not have bothered you nearly as much if no union jobs were involved...the unions were not 'bailed out' ......you speak of 'rhetoric', yet, that is all you speak, you speak of the different roles of the federal and state governments, yet you don't understand yourself...educate yourself before you claim others dont understand.
    The biggest liability on the balance sheet now owns 55% of the company, if that isnt a bailout I dont know what the **** is.

  2. #832
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by randel View Post
    and yet again, the word 'union' comes up in your response...just admit it and be honest, what happened would not have bothered you nearly as much if no union jobs were involved...the unions were not 'bailed out' ......you speak of 'rhetoric', yet, that is all you speak, you speak of the different roles of the federal and state governments, yet you don't understand yourself...educate yourself before you claim others dont understand.
    Are you telling me that none of the those so called saved jobs were union jobs? Really? it does appear that jobs may not be the case but pay certainly was yet still Obama claims he saved jobs

    Obama Didn't Save Union Jobs, He Saved Union Pay - Forbes.com

    how about a list of those jobs "saved" to see how many really are union jobs?

    As for the role of the state and Federal Government, it is you that seems to believe they are the same. You claim I don't know the difference yet never offer specifics

  3. #833
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Unemployment Definition Abbott and Costello

    Unemployment Definition

    Abbott and Costello

    COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America .
    ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible times. It's 9%.

    COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
    ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

    COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
    ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

    COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.
    ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

    COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
    ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...

    COSTELLO: Wait a minute. Is it 9% or 16%?
    ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

    COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
    ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed.
    You have to look for work to be unemployed.

    COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!
    ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

    COSTELLO: What point?
    ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted
    with those who look for
    work. It wouldn't be fair.

    COSTELLO: To whom?
    ABBOTT: The unemployed.

    COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
    ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work.
    Those who are out of work stopped looking. They
    gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer
    in the ranks of the unemployed.

    COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that
    would count as less unemployment?
    ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

    COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you
    don't look for work?
    ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%.
    Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read
    about 16% unemployment do ya?

    COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
    ABBOTT: Absolutely.

    COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means
    they're two ways to bring down the unemployment
    number?
    ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

    COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
    ABBOTT: Correct.

    OSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop
    looking for a job?
    ABBOTT: Bingo.

    COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and
    the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.
    ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

    COSTELLO: I don't even know what the heck I just said!
    And now you know why Obama's unemployment figures are improving!

  4. #834
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Unemployment Definition Abbott and Costello



    And now you know why Obama's unemployment figures are improving!

    That’s been around for a while. The last time I seen it was with the gippers 1982 number in it.

    It looked like this.

    10.8% in 1982

    Unemployment Definition

    Abbott and Costello

    COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
    ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible times. 10.8%

    COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
    ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

    COSTELLO: You just said 10.8%
    ABBOTT: 10.8% Unemployed.

    COSTELLO: Right 10.8% out of work.
    ABBOTT: No, that's 10.8%

    COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
    ABBOTT: No, that's 10.8%

    COSTELLO: Wait a minute. Is it 10.8% or 16%?
    ABBOTT: 10.8% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

    COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
    ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed.
    You have to look for work to be unemployed.

    COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!
    ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

    COSTELLO: What point?
    ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted
    with those who look for
    work. It wouldn't be fair.

    COSTELLO: To whom?
    ABBOTT: The unemployed.

    COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
    ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work.
    Those who are out of work stopped looking. They
    gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer
    in the ranks of the unemployed.

    COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that
    would count as less unemployment?
    ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

    COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you
    don't look for work?
    ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%.
    Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read
    about 16% unemployment do ya?

    COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
    ABBOTT: Absolutely.

    COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means
    they're two ways to bring down the unemployment
    number?
    ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

    COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
    ABBOTT: Correct.

    OSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop
    looking for a job?
    ABBOTT: Bingo.

    COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and
    the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.
    ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

    COSTELLO: I don't even know what the heck I just said!
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  5. #835
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
    That’s been around for a while. The last time I seen it was with the gippers 1982 number in it.

    It looked like this.

    10.8% in 1982

    Unemployment Definition

    Abbott and Costello

    COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
    ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible times. 10.8%

    COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
    ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

    COSTELLO: You just said 10.8%
    ABBOTT: 10.8% Unemployed.

    COSTELLO: Right 10.8% out of work.
    ABBOTT: No, that's 10.8%

    COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
    ABBOTT: No, that's 10.8%

    COSTELLO: Wait a minute. Is it 10.8% or 16%?
    ABBOTT: 10.8% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

    COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
    ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed.
    You have to look for work to be unemployed.

    COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!
    ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

    COSTELLO: What point?
    ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted
    with those who look for
    work. It wouldn't be fair.

    COSTELLO: To whom?
    ABBOTT: The unemployed.

    COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
    ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work.
    Those who are out of work stopped looking. They
    gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer
    in the ranks of the unemployed.

    COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that
    would count as less unemployment?
    ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

    COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you
    don't look for work?
    ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%.
    Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read
    about 16% unemployment do ya?

    COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
    ABBOTT: Absolutely.

    COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means
    they're two ways to bring down the unemployment
    number?
    ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

    COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
    ABBOTT: Correct.

    OSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop
    looking for a job?
    ABBOTT: Bingo.

    COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and
    the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.
    ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

    COSTELLO: I don't even know what the heck I just said!
    you really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Back when Reagan was President discouraged workers were unemployed and counted as unemployed. That calculation changed in 1994. Discouraged workers were unemployed, people dropping out of the labor force were unemployed. Do liberals ever apologize for being wrong?

  6. #836
    Guru
    Jryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    01-12-16 @ 09:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,987
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    This argument is kind of dumb. I'm in the 16% because I'm a full time student and I'm not looking for a job. I'd really like to see the statistics that say the majority of the non-unemployed that are out of work have stopped looking due to discouragement. Then, conservative, you may have your apology.

    The data from the Office for National Statistics inidcated that 722000 people aged 16 to 24 were out of work - one in six - while their younger...

    That would further my point just FYI.
    I'm coming to see that no matter what law we regulate, be it the stand your ground act, there is never an objective morally right answer to any morale question; in fact, since there are multiple objectively right answers to every moral question that leaves us with a lot of grey area and a lot of black area (not in the racial since).
    -Jryan

  7. #837
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    There was no compromise. First he dictated an unconstitutional provision then he lied about it.

    But just for fun show me where the president has the authority to tell a company they must provide something to anyone at a cost to themselves and at no cost to the beneficiary.

    This has become a dictatorship.
    OMG, President Obama has become a dictator? That's one of the funniest things I've read today.


  8. #838
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    you really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Back when Reagan was President discouraged workers were unemployed and counted as unemployed. That calculation changed in 1994. Discouraged workers were unemployed, people dropping out of the labor force were unemployed. Do liberals ever apologize for being wrong?
    Wrong yet again.Sigh.

    <The official unemployment rate, however, masks two important differences between the unemployment rate in 1982 and today. The first is demographic. In 1982, the US population was substantially younger than it is today. Even in an otherwise identical economy, we would expect a younger population to have a higher unemployment rate than an older population would. The second difference is statistical. The main government survey used to measure the unemployment rate – the Current Population Survey (CPS) – reaches a smaller share of the population today than it did in 1982, and is especially likely to miss people who are not employed. As a result, the official unemployment rate understates the unemployment rate today relative to 1982.>

    http://www.cepr.net/documents/public...ur-2009-03.pdf
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  9. #839
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by Jryan View Post
    This argument is kind of dumb. I'm in the 16% because I'm a full time student and I'm not looking for a job. I'd really like to see the statistics that say the majority of the non-unemployed that are out of work have stopped looking due to discouragement. Then, conservative, you may have your apology.

    The data from the Office for National Statistics inidcated that 722000 people aged 16 to 24 were out of work - one in six - while their younger...

    That would further my point just FYI.
    Read the BLS website and see how calculations are made. Full time students aren't counted as employed, unemployed, or discouraged

  10. #840
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

    Quote Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
    Wrong yet again.Sigh.

    <The official unemployment rate, however, masks two important differences between the unemployment rate in 1982 and today. The first is demographic. In 1982, the US population was substantially younger than it is today. Even in an otherwise identical economy, we would expect a younger population to have a higher unemployment rate than an older population would. The second difference is statistical. The main government survey used to measure the unemployment rate – the Current Population Survey (CPS) – reaches a smaller share of the population today than it did in 1982, and is especially likely to miss people who are not employed. As a result, the official unemployment rate understates the unemployment rate today relative to 1982.>

    http://www.cepr.net/documents/public...ur-2009-03.pdf
    Wrong as usual, discouraged workers were counted as unemployed during the 80's, suggest better research, Obama had over a million discouraged workers that weren't counted as unemployed. Also check the BLS site and tell me the first month for discouraged workers and the U-6 numbers were available. Your support and loyalty to Obama is quite telling and quite misguided

    Information on U-6 as well as all the portals available from BLS. Notice the Obama U-6 numbers. Wonder how many he can get to drop out in 2012?

    http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp
    Last edited by Conservative; 02-11-12 at 08:10 PM.

Posting Permissions

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