• 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.
Add that to the 10+% of the people who are employed wanting to work full time but only able to find part time work (me) and it's easy to see why the unemployment numbers are going down. It takes approx 125,000 new jobs per month to just break even with all the new people attempting to join the job market. People turn 18 every day and start looking for work. So to believe 130,000 new jobs a month would substancially bring down unemployment when we need 125,000 just to break even is simply ridiculous. Of course the Obama administration will attempt to spin anything into good economic news, even the slightest anomoly to sitting all but dead in the water. Look at the GDP growth for 2011, 1.6% for the year. At that rate, the economy will be back to normal just in time for Captain Kirk to open the first Star Base.

This is more partisan nonsense. The BLS stats showed an increase in the civilian noninstitutional population, 16 and over of 1,685,000 in the month from Dec to Jan. The BLS can get decent figures for the total of those employed or unemployed, but these other figures have a bad reputation. All you have to do is look how the whole population and the population of those Not in the work force varies with time to see these stats aren't good.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf
 
This is more partisan nonsense. The BLS stats showed an increase in the civilian noninstitutional population, 16 and over of 1,685,000 in the month from Dec to Jan. The BLS can get decent figures for the total of those employed or unemployed, but these other figures have a bad reputation. All you have to do is look how the whole population and the population of those Not in the work force varies with time to see these stats aren't good.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

From you link!

Employed

2009 14,265,000
2011 13,747,000

518,000 more people employed.

Unemployed

2009 14,265,000
2011 13,747,000

518,000 less people unemployed.

That's a far cry from Obama's claim.
 
From you link!

Employed

2009 14,265,000
2011 13,747,000

518,000 more people employed.

Unemployed

2009 14,265,000
2011 13,747,000

518,000 less people unemployed.

That's a far cry from Obama's claim.
Oh? And what claim would that be?
 
From you link!

Employed

2009 14,265,000
2011 13,747,000

518,000 more people employed.

Unemployed

2009 14,265,000
2011 13,747,000

518,000 less people unemployed.

That's a far cry from Obama's claim.

Can you read a link?

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

Compare December to January! Notice the population increased 1,685,000 in a month. That's not reasonable to have such a large population increase in a month and the population data has been adjusted by census data. Now, if you have stats on people employed and unemployed, which column can you put those new found people in? The only column that doesn't have field data supporting it is the Not in labor force column, because the numbers have to add up. That's why 1,177,000 are added to the Not in labor force. The amount of people working actually increased 508,000 in that month. The BLS gets these figures by surveying businesses and even has data on what industry is doing the hiring. The unemployment numbers come from people collecting unemployment and aren't everyone who is unemployment. If you want those stats, you use U6 data and not U3. The BLS publishes both.

When the BLS reports yearly data, it takes an average for that year. In the last months of the Bush administration, the economy was losing three quarters of a million jobs a month. Large monthly job loses continued in the early Obama administration, but the reason for these job loses was damage already done to the economy. Even today, the housing industry hasn't recovered to the point where new homes can be built, because there's an excess of foreclosure homes. With tighter controls on lending, it will take time for that inventory to be exhausted and home builders to become active again.

The unemployment rate isn't the significant thing in a nonfarm payrolls report. The significant thing that economist look for are jobs and who is hiring those people getting jobs.
 
Oh? And what claim would that be?

Kroft: I’m not saying this as fact, and hindsight is always 20-20. But there’s [a] general perception that the stimulus was not enough. That it really didn’t work. That…


Obama: Let me stop you there, Steve. First of all, there’s not general perception that the stimulus didn’t work. You’ve got John McCain’s former economist and a whole series of prominent economists, who say that it created or saved 3 millions jobs and prevented us from going into a great depression. That works.

FactCheck.org : Suspect Claims from Obama’s ’60 Minutes’ Interview



Looks like the stimulus "saved" many more public service union jobs than it did creating. Is that what the taxpayers spent $840 Billion dollars on? Saving public service Union workers jobs? Looks like it.


 
Can you read a link?

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

Compare December to January! Notice the population increased 1,685,000 in a month. That's not reasonable to have such a large population increase in a month and the population data has been adjusted by census data. Now, if you have stats on people employed and unemployed, which column can you put those new found people in? The only column that doesn't have field data supporting it is the Not in labor force column, because the numbers have to add up. That's why 1,177,000 are added to the Not in labor force. The amount of people working actually increased 508,000 in that month. The BLS gets these figures by surveying businesses and even has data on what industry is doing the hiring. The unemployment numbers come from people collecting unemployment and aren't everyone who is unemployment. If you want those stats, you use U6 data and not U3. The BLS publishes both.

When the BLS reports yearly data, it takes an average for that year. In the last months of the Bush administration, the economy was losing three quarters of a million jobs a month. Large monthly job loses continued in the early Obama administration, but the reason for these job loses was damage already done to the economy. Even today, the housing industry hasn't recovered to the point where new homes can be built, because there's an excess of foreclosure homes. With tighter controls on lending, it will take time for that inventory to be exhausted and home builders to become active again.

The unemployment rate isn't the significant thing in a nonfarm payrolls report. The significant thing that economist look for are jobs and who is hiring those people getting jobs.

So your admitting your own link is full of crap?
 
So your admitting your own link is full of crap?

I didn't post a link to an article using those numbers for Not in labor force and try to make a political point about it. I used the BLS link to show how the numbers aren't good.

I've pointed out the limitations of BLS data for over 10 years. The data for the amount of people on unemployment and the amount of people employed is good, but the unemployment rate is dependent on the total population 16 and over, and Not in the labor force category. Those numbers aren't good and just examining the data shows that.
 
I didn't post a link to an article using those numbers for Not in labor force and try to make a political point about it. I used the BLS link to show how the numbers aren't good.

I've pointed out the limitations of BLS data for over 10 years. The data for the amount of people on unemployment and the amount of people employed is good, but the unemployment rate is dependent on the total population 16 and over, and Not in the labor force category. Those numbers aren't good and just examining the data shows that.

It's right in the post above yours!
 
Looks like the stimulus "saved" many more public service union jobs than it did creating. Is that what the taxpayers spent $840 Billion dollars on? Saving public service Union workers jobs? Looks like it.


[/INDENT]

Do you know what the word spend means?

That stimulus didn't spend anywhere near that amount.

Taxes ($275 billion)

Source: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How are tax cuts spending?

Very little of the total stimulus bill was actual spending and most were transfers of money in tax cuts or to other state and local governments so they could avoid layoffs. The GDP doesn't call those transfers government spending.
 
WOW! Jobs, jobs and more jobs! Thank you Obama. Happy days are here again! Jobs here, jobs there, jobs everywhere! He did it....I can't believe it but the SOB did it...jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
 
WOW! Jobs, jobs and more jobs! Thank you Obama. Happy days are here again! Jobs here, jobs there, jobs everywhere! He did it....I can't believe it but the SOB did it...jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Part time jobs aren't much to write home to Mother about.
 
Do you know what the word spend means?

That stimulus didn't spend anywhere near that amount.



Source: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How are tax cuts spending?

Very little of the total stimulus bill was actual spending and most were transfers of money in tax cuts or to other state and local governments so they could avoid layoffs. The GDP doesn't call those transfers government spending.

So the Bush tax cuts weren't spending? I hear that from Libs on other sites. Thanks for the back up.
 
Thanks Gary for providing proof that the drop in unemployment has nothing to do with Obama other than his failure to facilitate job creation.

How can you know that? They added 1,685,000 people in a month and put 1,177,000 in the Not in labor force category. Like I told you, the BLS uses methods to calculate the amount of people in jobs and the amount of people getting unemployment. If they aren't in those categories the only other category is Not in labor force.

What's wrong with the right's ability to think? That stuff isn't that complicated, so why do you buy into someone making something out of nothing?
 
How can you know that? They added 1,685,000 people in a month and put 1,177,000 in the Not in labor force category. Like I told you, the BLS uses methods to calculate the amount of people in jobs and the amount of people getting unemployment. If they aren't in those categories the only other category is Not in labor force.

What's wrong with the right's ability to think? That stuff isn't that complicated, so why do you buy into someone making something out of nothing?

It's how the Obama administration fudges the numbers. That's easy to see.
 
It's how the Obama administration fudges the numbers. That's easy to see.

How do you know that?

It's the way U3 unemployment stats have always been calculated. If you don't like it, use U6 stats that calculate the amount of people who would return to the labor force, if opportunity was better. The BLS has always reported those stats, too.

You need to stop making things up and deal with what is for a change!
 
How do you know that? It's the way U3 unemployment stats have always been calculated. If you don't like it, use U6 stats that calculate the amount of people who would return to the labor force, if opportunity was better. The BLS has always reported those stats, too. You need to stop making things up and deal with what is for a change!
Well it does take a brain to figure it out. Did you?
 
It's how the Obama administration fudges the numbers. That's easy to see.
If administrations could make up numbers, how did the unemployment rate nearly double while Bush was president? Why isn't it 6% now?
 
Kinda weird you phrase it thusly.

Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".


That was in 1932. The better comparison to this year is to 1936, when FDR sought re-election. FDR's opponent, Alf Landon, bashed the New Deal for being wasteful and bad for business. Polls and pundits predicted Landon to win. FDR won by a landslide though.
 
How do you know that?

It's the way U3 unemployment stats have always been calculated. If you don't like it, use U6 stats that calculate the amount of people who would return to the labor force, if opportunity was better. The BLS has always reported those stats, too.

You need to stop making things up and deal with what is for a change!

Actually the U-3 numbers calculation changed in 1994, prior to that the U-3 included discouraged workers but that isn't the case now. Obama has averaged close to 1 million per month discouraged workers that aren't counted as unemployed. When you count the number of reported unemployed plus the discouraged workers the results are quite diffferent than Obama or his supporters will ever admit.
 
Actually the U-3 numbers calculation changed in 1994, prior to that the U-3 included discouraged workers but that isn't the case now. Obama has averaged close to 1 million per month discouraged workers that aren't counted as unemployed. When you count the number of reported unemployed plus the discouraged workers the results are quite diffferent than Obama or his supporters will ever admit.
:lamo At that rate by the time he leaves office 20-Jan-2017 nobody will be working.:(
 
:lamo At that rate by the time he leaves office 20-Jan-2017 nobody will be working.:(

And you will be standing up cheering the zero unemployment rate and Obama still will get your vote, probably trying to amend the Constitution to give him a lifetime hold on the office.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom