• 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!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amigo said:
Don't believe it! The numbers are a result of a shrinking work force.
Click to expand...

The report clearly said the labor force participation rate held steady from december 2011 to January 2012 once controlling for population. I even cited the specific paragraph.
 
sangha said:
Answer mine

How many jobs were lost because of bush*'s recession?
Click to expand...

Your question wasn't directed at me.

Answer: If the economy collapsed this year, will you admit that it's Obama's fault?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Why would either fair well during a recession? LOL. Besides this doesn't have much to do with the topic.
Click to expand...

Some are shouting how great 243K jobs are and how it is good for Obama. I mearly pointed out job growth has not been that great under Bush or Obama.
Yes, recession sucks for jobs.
 
mike2810 said:
Some are shouting how great 243K jobs are and how it is good for Obama. I mearly pointed out job growth has not been that great under Bush or Obama.
Yes, recession sucks for jobs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, it's great when expectations have been severely dampened by most of last year's labor reports. So yes it's all relative.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Yeah, well, it's great when expectations have been severely dampened by most of last year's labor reports. So yes it's all relative.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I am pleased to see the increased numbers. Heck, my daughter has been out of work for 2 years.
Hope the trend continues upward.
 
:3....... You can say the republicans stopped Obama from making the economy worse....... :3

now fight!
 
jasonxe said:
:3....... You can say the republicans stopped Obama from making the economy worse....... :3

now fight!
Click to expand...

You can also say, with some confidence, that they stopped him from making it even better.
 
AdamT said:
You can also say, with some confidence, that they stopped him from making it even better.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems pointless to discuss either way since you can't provide evidence to either effect, except that the only stimulus in affect is tax cuts ATM, which Obama's big expensive stimulus bills were in affect for years previous, along with Bush's stimulus.
 
at this rate obama will be in office again
 
Texas factories are back running and hiring people.

I think it has to do with the low quality of Chinese manufacturing. High end items seem to be ok from them. Appliances and mercantile, not so much.
 
StillBallin75 said:
The report clearly said the labor force participation rate held steady from december 2011 to January 2012 once controlling for population. I even cited the specific paragraph.
Click to expand...

My main question is why were only 258K added to the civilian labor force out of the 1,510K added to the civilian noninstitutional population. That seems absurdly low. The report's explanation is:

This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a
lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force
participation than the general population.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't seem to mention 114K increase in discouraged workers among the reason for this low ratio. The other thing to note is that out of the 847K employment increase, 699K were part time and 80K were full time. This guy takes issue with the seasonal adjustments the BLS does. He notes Table B-1 and the difference between non-seasonally adjusted data and the data that has been seasonally adjusted.



Cherry-picking bad line items I'll admit, but still something to keep in mind. I'm sure very few will believe me when I say this, but I would have the same reaction if there was a Republican in the White House. I am naturally skeptical of government data that is used as political capital. The CPI is another statistic I take issue with, and there are a number of economists who have different measures of inflation that I find to be more representative of what's actually going on.
 
AdamT said:
The GDP figure is mentioned here: News Headlines

Though I think it's actually somewhere in a range of .5 - 1.5%.

The $30/wk figure was for someone making $75k, which is admittedly on the high side. It's $20/wk for someone making $50k. Payroll tax cut standoff's impact: What $40 a paycheck means to you – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs
Click to expand...

Thanks. I thought the 1% GDP estimate was the boost already given by the payroll tax cut a few years ago. The 1% estimate would be the boost in GDP in the first half of 2012 which makes a lot more sense to me.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
My main question is why were only 258K added to the civilian labor force out of the 1,510K added to the civilian noninstitutional population. That seems absurdly low. The report's explanation is:



But it doesn't seem to mention 114K increase in discouraged workers among the reason for this low ratio. The other thing to note is that out of the 847K employment increase, 699K were part time and 80K were full time. This guy takes issue with the seasonal adjustments the BLS does. He notes Table B-1 and the difference between non-seasonally adjusted data and the data that has been seasonally adjusted.



Cherry-picking bad line items I'll admit, but still something to keep in mind. I'm sure very few will believe me when I say this, but I would have the same reaction if there was a Republican in the White House. I am naturally skeptical of government data that is used as political capital. The CPI is another statistic I take issue with, and there are a number of economists who have different measures of inflation that I find to be more representative of what's actually going on.
Click to expand...


That's fair, thanks for laying out your position.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Any data on what jobs are being created? I mean losing 100,000 high paying jobs and replacing them with 200,000 minimum wage jobs really isn't something to be excited over. [...]
Click to expand...
Well, that must be what happened then. More jobs is bad. I'm glad that someone can see thru the propaganda.

Ontologuy said:
[...] The correct interpretation of this chart -- Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age -- still reflects a true national unemployment rate of roughly 14.5%.
Click to expand...
Bah! More propaganda! The true unemployment rate is 41.5%... stop sugarcoating it! (Civilian noninstitutional population minus Employed equals Unemployed). [/hyperbole] [/sarcasm] [/irrational rant]
 
Karl said:
Well, that must be what happened then. More jobs is bad. I'm glad that someone can see thru the propaganda.
Click to expand...

That's funny; the talk from the Left in the '80s and in the '00s was about how all the jobs being created were "burger-flipping" jobs.

So, are more jobs better, or aren't they?
 
AdamT said:
You can also say, with some confidence, that they stopped him from making it even better.
Click to expand...

You may be confident of that, but it doesn't make it so.

It IS interesting how the economy thus far has supposedly been "Bush's" economy, but hey, when something good happens, suddenly it's all Obama. All bad news is Bush's fault, even three years into Obama's term; all good news is purely Obama's doing. Is that about right?
 
Harshaw said:
You may be confident of that, but it doesn't make it so.

It IS interesting how the economy thus far has supposedly been "Bush's" economy, but hey, when something good happens, suddenly it's all Obama. All bad news is Bush's fault, even three years into Obama's term; all good news is purely Obama's doing. Is that about right?
Click to expand...

That's a pure strawman argument. It's obvious that Obama inherited a horrible economy, but for some reason many conservatives refuse to acknowledge that. Thus, unfortunately, it's constantly necessary to refresh their recollection. That in no way suggests that the present Congress and adminitration aren't responsible for dealing with what they were given.
 
AdamT said:
That's a pure strawman argument. It's obvious that Obama inherited a horrible economy, but for some reason many conservatives refuse to acknowledge that. Thus, unfortunately, it's constantly necessary to refresh their recollection. That in no way suggests that the present Congress and adminitration aren't responsible for dealing with what they were given.
Click to expand...

Speaking of strawmen, no one "refuses to acknowledge" that.
 
Harshaw said:
That's funny; the talk from the Left in the '80s and in the '00s was about how all the jobs being created were "burger-flipping" jobs.

So, are more jobs better, or aren't they?
Click to expand...
My distillation of right wing posts on the subject is twofold:

a) If more jobs make Obama look good, then they are bad.

b) If the unemployment rate goes down while Obama is president, then it's really 15%
 
apdst said:
At that rate, we'll break even in what? 6 years?
Click to expand...

When the stock market crashed in 1929, it was not until 1953 that it attained the same level it had before it crashed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom