- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Answer my question.
Answer mine
How many jobs were lost because of bush*'s recession?
Answer my question.
Don't believe it! The numbers are a result of a shrinking work force.
Answer mine
How many jobs were lost because of bush*'s recession?
Can't handle the facts, huh?
Why would either fair well during a recession? LOL. Besides this doesn't have much to do with the topic.
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.
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.
:3....... You can say the republicans stopped Obama from making the economy worse....... :3
now fight!
You can also say, with some confidence, that they stopped him from making it even better.
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.
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.
Which explains the right's fascination with the falseIt's hard to ignore something that isn't true.
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
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.
Well, that must be what happened then. More jobs is bad. I'm glad that someone can see thru the propaganda.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. [...]
Bah! More propaganda! The true unemployment rate is 41.5%... stop sugarcoating it! (Civilian noninstitutional population minus Employed equals Unemployed). [/hyperbole] [/sarcasm] [/irrational rant][...] 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%.
Well, that must be what happened then. More jobs is bad. I'm glad that someone can see thru the propaganda.
You can also say, with some confidence, that they stopped him from making it even better.
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?
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.
My distillation of right wing posts on the subject is twofold: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?
At that rate, we'll break even in what? 6 years?