• 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.
G'head, Con, do your thing ... this is where you search for the dark gray cloud behind the silver lining.

:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
More bad news for Conservatives ...

Commodities Record Longest Rally in 10 Months After Gains in U.S. Economy

Commodities rose, capping the longest rally in 10 months, on signs of gains in the U.S. economy. Industrial metals and crude oil led the rally.​


... good news for America is bad news for Conservatives
The rising cost of commodities is not a good thing for consumers. It may reflect economic improvement, or it may reflect inflation, but having to pay more for everything is not particularly good news.
 
The rising cost of commodities is not a good thing for consumers. It may reflect economic improvement, or it may reflect inflation, but having to pay more for everything is not particularly good news.
It is good news when it's a reflection of an improving economy. To the consternation of America's rightwing, the economy is improving.
 
It is good news when it's a reflection of an improving economy. To the consternation of America's rightwing, the economy is improving.
High commodity prices may reflect a good economy, but they can also stall that economy. But I agree that the economy is improving. How long it will last and how much government action is responsible is debatable.
 
More bad news for Conservatives ...

U.S. jobless claims hold steady at 4-year low


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits last week held at the lowest level since the early days of the 2007-2009 recession, signalling that the battered labour market is healing.​


... good news for America is bad news for Conservatives

Barack Obama appreciates your support and is laughing his ass off at how he has been able to fool people like you.
 
Barack Obama appreciates your support and is laughing his ass off at how he has been able to fool people like you.
Now you're under the impression that Barack Obama himself is responsible for the numbers gathered and reported on by the BLS???
:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Now you're under the impression that Barack Obama himself is responsible for the numbers gathered and reported on by the BLS???
:lamo:lamo:lamo

Not if the numbers are bad then those are Bush's fault but if they are good then they are Obama's results. Isn't that the way the script from the DNC says?
 
Not if the numbers are bad then those are Bush's fault but if they are good then they are Obama's results. Isn't that the way the script from the DNC says?

No, if the numbers are bad they're Obama's fault, but if they're good they're fraudulent and it's still Obama's fault. Isn't that the Conservative script?
 
Not if the numbers are bad then those are Bush's fault but if they are good then they are Obama's results. Isn't that the way the script from the DNC says?
Focus, Con ... focus. You said Obama is fooling me with those numbers. Since you think he manufactures those numbers, perhaps you can explain how he does that?
 
Focus, Con ... focus. You said Obama is fooling me with those numbers. Since you think he manufactures those numbers, perhaps you can explain how he does that?


Do you think Conservative is about to join in the new (old?) republican demon; the war on contraception?
 
Do you think Conservative is about to join in the new (old?) republican demon; the war on contraception?
I don't know but I'm trying to get him to explain how Obama is releasing BLS numbers which he claims Obama is fooling me with; and understandably, he's at a loss of words.
 
I don't know but I'm trying to get him to explain how Obama is releasing BLS numbers which he claims Obama is fooling me with; and understandably, he's at a loss of words.


Well, I can't speak for Conservative, but he is a smart cookie when it comes to these stats, if anyone can eventually root it out, he can. But something is definately fishy with these stats, I don't trust them.


j-mac
 
Well, I can't speak for Conservative, but he is a smart cookie when it comes to these stats, if anyone can eventually root it out, he can. But something is definately fishy with these stats, I don't trust them.


j-mac

Thanks, j-mac, the real issue is the rest of the story and the one not being told to the Obama supporters. The U-3 unemployment number has been calculated this way since 1994 where discouraged workers aren't counted as unemployed any more but instead they go to the U-6 number. weekly unemployment numbers are only an indicator and the real issue is they don't matter as long as more and more people are dropping out of the work force and getting discouraged thus stop looking for work. If things are going so well for Obama why is his approval rating so low? Anyone with the results Obama claims would definitely be in the 60% approval area. Only the cult followers continue to buy his lies and Obama continues to fuel them.

Obama continues to fool all his supporters by telling only half the story. What is amazing is the numbers of unemployed and discouraged workers between the Bush years and the Obama years are very similar yet Bush was bad and Obama is the messiah. Don't know what liberalism offers to create such fools but there are far too many of them.
 
I agree, and with a complicit media out there pushing the lie in everything that is reported from Politico, to even FOXnews it makes me nervous that things will ever get past this era of propaganda.


j-mac
 
I agree, and with a complicit media out there pushing the lie in everything that is reported from Politico, to even FOXnews it makes me nervous that things will ever get past this era of propaganda.


j-mac

The difference between fox news and media is Fox news intentionally uses bias while the rest of "media" is unintentional bias, AKA one lies the other doesn't...
 
Well, I can't speak for Conservative, but he is a smart cookie when it comes to these stats, if anyone can eventually root it out, he can. But something is definately fishy with these stats, I don't trust them.


j-mac
Well, they may look fishy, but here's the story from the WSJ:


[...]The employment gain wasn’t immediately obvious to some observers because of a quirk in this month’s report. Every January, the Labor Department readjusts its data to account for changes in the population. The tweaks are especially significant in years like this one that take into account a new decennial census.

This year, the population adjustment makes it look like the employment-population ratio didn’t change from December to January. In reality, the ratio improved by 0.3 percentage points. The gains were just masked by the population adjustments.

Here’s what happened: According to the Census Bureau, the civilian population grew by 1.5 million people in 2011. But the growth wasn’t distributed evenly. Most of the growth came among people 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, by people 16-24 years old. Both groups are less likely to work than people in their mid-20s to early 50s. So the share of the population that’s working is actually lower than previously believed. Taking that into account, the employment-population ratio went up. The unemployment rate wasn’t affected.

“There was not a big increase in discouraged workers,” economist Betsey Stevenson commented on Twitter. “What happened was Census found a bunch of old people we had assumed died.” [...]

What’s Behind the Unemployment Rate Drop? - Real Time Economics - WSJ
 
Well, they may look fishy, but here's the story from the WSJ:


[...]The employment gain wasn’t immediately obvious to some observers because of a quirk in this month’s report. Every January, the Labor Department readjusts its data to account for changes in the population. The tweaks are especially significant in years like this one that take into account a new decennial census.

This year, the population adjustment makes it look like the employment-population ratio didn’t change from December to January. In reality, the ratio improved by 0.3 percentage points. The gains were just masked by the population adjustments.

Here’s what happened: According to the Census Bureau, the civilian population grew by 1.5 million people in 2011. But the growth wasn’t distributed evenly. Most of the growth came among people 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, by people 16-24 years old. Both groups are less likely to work than people in their mid-20s to early 50s. So the share of the population that’s working is actually lower than previously believed. Taking that into account, the employment-population ratio went up. The unemployment rate wasn’t affected.

“There was not a big increase in discouraged workers,” economist Betsey Stevenson commented on Twitter. “What happened was Census found a bunch of old people we had assumed died.” [...]

What’s Behind the Unemployment Rate Drop? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

They must have made the same mistake every month since January 2010. Nothing ever is going to change the mind of the brainwashed.

Discouraged workers in thousands by month

2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318 1173
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945 989
2012 1059
 
The difference between fox news and media is Fox news intentionally uses bias while the rest of "media" is unintentional bias, AKA one lies the other doesn't...


Don't make me laugh....


j-mac
 
Thanks, j-mac, the real issue is the rest of the story and the one not being told to the Obama supporters. The U-3 unemployment number has been calculated this way since 1994 where discouraged workers aren't counted as unemployed any more but instead they go to the U-6 number. weekly unemployment numbers are only an indicator and the real issue is they don't matter as long as more and more people are dropping out of the work force and getting discouraged thus stop looking for work. If things are going so well for Obama why is his approval rating so low? Anyone with the results Obama claims would definitely be in the 60% approval area. Only the cult followers continue to buy his lies and Obama continues to fuel them.

Obama continues to fool all his supporters by telling only half the story. What is amazing is the numbers of unemployed and discouraged workers between the Bush years and the Obama years are very similar yet Bush was bad and Obama is the messiah. Don't know what liberalism offers to create such fools but there are far too many of them.

The U3 rate is calculated the same way it's been calculated for close to 2 decades now. Same for the U6 rate. Bizarre doesn't even begin to describe how it took you 18 years to decide the BLS is fooling Americans.

And by any measure, the unemployment rate, is not much higher than when Obama started.

As far as Obama's JAR, his average is 47.9%; Bush's average at this same point in his presidency was 49%.

And I note that my challenge to you to explain how Obama is manipulating the numbers remains unanswered.
 
David Brock is a piece of **** who shifts his ideology based on the dollar signs he sees in his eyes. He was a staunch Conservative while that paid his bills. When it became financially expedient, he became a Liberal.
I sure would like to see your evidence that he shifted from the right to the left for financial reasons. Typically writers on the right make far more money than those on the left.


Book Review: Blinded By The Right
 
The U3 rate is calculated the same way it's been calculated for close to 2 decades now. Same for the U6 rate. Bizarre doesn't even begin to describe how it took you 18 years to decide the BLS is fooling Americans.

And by any measure, the unemployment rate, is not much higher than when Obama started.

As far as Obama's JAR, his average is 47.9%; Bush's average at this same point in his presidency was 49%.

And I note that my challenge to you to explain how Obama is manipulating the numbers remains unanswered.

Yes, it is, been calculated the same way for the past two decades and shows that Bush had half the discouraged workers as Obama had so add the unemployed and discouraged workers for both Presidents for a true picture of unemployment. By all measurement Obama loses and Bush didn't spend 4.6 trillion in three yers to generate those numbers. As for percentages you don't seem to understand the higher the base the lower the percentage thus a 4.6 trillion dollar debt in three years when you start at 10.6 trillion isn't nearlhy as high as a 4.9 increase in the debt in 8 years when the base was 5.7 trillion.

No where did I say that Obama was manipulating the numbers, that is a downright lie from an intellectually dishonest liberal. I said he was telling part of the story and fooling people like you by not telling the whole story which is as I have posted many times, unemployment higher today it was when Obama took office, employment lower, more discouraged workers, and a labor force that hasn't kept up with population growth. You can continue to play your game but the reality shows Obama less popular today than when he took office and if his numbers were as you believe they wouldn't be lower, they would be higher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom