• 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!

Payrolls in U.S. Climb 227,000; Jobless Rate Holds at 8.3%

treedancer said:
YABUTT...its such fun to speculate eh?

Note the part of your post i bolded.:2wave:
Click to expand...
I agree. My post was pure speculation. But the economy has had a few false starts and a few peaks and valleys since Obama became president. This could very well be a peak. As for your bolded part, I agree there also. Can Romney articulate a coherent assault on Obamanomics? I have my doubts about that, but we shall see.
 
Fletch said:
I agree. My post was pure speculation. But the economy has had a few false starts and a few peaks and valleys since Obama became president. This could very well be a peak. As for your bolded part, I agree there also. Can Romney articulate a coherent assault on Obamanomics? I have my doubts about that, but we shall see.
Click to expand...

Considering the candidates (Presidential) and the assault on birth control; best lay low and hope for short-term memory loss.
 
pbrauer said:
Seriously, I think the folks on the Right are looking for bad news. In the last 2 years businesses have added nearly 4 million jobs. And Romney continues to say Obama made the recession worse.
Click to expand...

Got a link for that one?
 
apdst said:
Got a link for that one?
Click to expand...

I can help.

Employment Situation Summary

Feb 2012 Employment - 142.1 million
Dec 2009 Employment - 138.0 million

L
abor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey


Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Click to expand...
 
jonny5 said:
I can help.

Employment Situation Summary

Feb 2012 Employment - 142.1 million
Dec 2009 Employment - 138.0 million

L
Click to expand...

So that's 4.1 million jobs in 25 months.

LOL! Great! That means that in just two years this Administration has added over a million more Americans to the unemployment lines.

You do understand that this nation needs to produce between 200 and 250 thousand jobs a month just to keep up with population growth?

This Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, is NOT the answer. He IS the problem.
 
a777pilot said:
So that's 4.1 million jobs in 25 months.

LOL! Great! That means that in just two years this Administration has added over a million more Americans to the unemployment lines.

You do understand that this nation needs to produce between 200 and 250 thousand jobs a month just to keep up with population growth?

This Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, is NOT the answer. He IS the problem.
Click to expand...

Dont attack me. Im just providing facts.
 
jonny5 said:
I can help.

Employment Situation Summary

Feb 2012 Employment - 142.1 million
Dec 2009 Employment - 138.0 million

L
Click to expand...

The problem with claiming that number, 4 million, is that anyone can then say "well, since you were in office....".

So, that being said, since being in office:

600k more people in the labor force
120k less people employed
800k more unemployed
7.5 million more people not in the labor force.
 
clip_image001-788551.jpg
 
a777pilot said:
There are NO reliable sources. You have to do all the research yourself.

Example: The USA's population grew on the average by 2.8 million per year for the last ten years. Now you figure out how many jobs this economy needs to create to employ those.

Yes, I understand that census figures are government figures and are subject to manipulation.....hell, it's the government so lying is mandatory.
Click to expand...

And what you seem to forget, is that that population growth is divided between immigration and births. Births wont matter to the job market for at least another 15 years. On top of that all these "projections" (often done by right wing think tanks) never take into consideration the baby boomer generation retiring.

And more and more economists.. actual economists, not right wing think tank economists, are questioning the old rule of thumb that you need 250k jobs to keep up with the population growth.
 
Last edited:
a777pilot said:
There are NO reliable sources. You have to do all the research yourself.

Example: The USA's population grew on the average by 2.8 million per year for the last ten years. Now you figure out how many jobs this economy needs to create to employ those.

Yes, I understand that census figures are government figures and are subject to manipulation.....hell, it's the government so lying is mandatory.
Click to expand...
That's assuming that all of those people are going to be out looking for jobs. Some people are stay at home parents, some people are retiring and giving those jobs to new people, some people are disabled and not able to work. I'm thinking those government employees that deal with these numbers all day long are much better at this than you or I. I was merely pointing out that your assertion of 250,000 has not been verified as far as I have seen. Every where I look it says 125,000 to keep up with population growth, 250,000 / month on average to actually reduce the unemployment number in any meaningful way.
 
Samhain said:
The problem with claiming that number, 4 million, is that anyone can then say "well, since you were in office....".

So, that being said, since being in office:

600k more people in the labor force
120k less people employed
800k more unemployed
7.5 million more people not in the labor force.
Click to expand...

Obviously linking anything the President did to job growth is a political argument. Then again, most of what he did had already been done by Bush, so they are tied together. Bush started TARP, stimulus, and auto loans.
 
This is a very useful tool from the Fed:

Jobs Calculator

It shows we would need to add, on average, 179,303 jobs a month to get the unemployment rate under 8% by election day and 101,399 jobs to break even assuming no change in the LFPR.

To show the power of the LFPR, if the rate drops from 63.9% to 63%, we would get to 7.5% unemployment if we added zero jobs.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
And what you seem to forget, is that that population growth is divided between immigration and births. Births wont matter to the job market for at least another 15 years. On top of that all these "projections" (often done by right wing think tanks) never take into consideration the baby boomer generation retiring.

And more and more economists.. actual economists, not right wing think tank economists, are questioning the old rule of thumb that you need 250k jobs to keep up with the population growth.
Click to expand...

Children always require money to be spent on them for clothing, food, etc, which is directly responsible for increased spending.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
This is a very useful tool from the Fed:

Jobs Calculator

It shows we would need to add, on average, 179,303 jobs a month to get the unemployment rate under 8% by election day and 101,399 jobs to break even assuming no change in the LFPR.

To show the power of the LFPR, if the rate drops from 63.9% to 63%, we would get to 7.5% unemployment if we added zero jobs.
Click to expand...
It not only shows the power of the LFPR, but how irrelevant the bls unemployment rate is as an indicator of the strength of the economy. Where's the calculator that tells us what the effect will be on tax revenue and corporate revenue as we continue this downward trend in the LFPR, which shows no signs of stabilizing at our already early-80's level.

We know that the BLS will tell us about the precipitous drop in unemployment, but that's not exactly good news.
 
pbrauer said:
While the unemployment rate is still at 8.3%, it seems as though an honest recovery is taking place. There has been 24 months of straight private sector growth. There were 233K private sector jobs created in Feb, but a loss of 6K in the public sector brought the total down to 227K jobs.

Payrolls in U.S. Climb 227,000; Jobless Rate Holds at 8.3% - Bloomberg

"Employers in the U.S. boosted payrolls more than forecast in February, capping the best six- month streak of job growth since 2006 and sending stocks higher.

The 227,000 increase followed a revised 284,000 gain in January that was bigger than first estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median projection of economists in a Bloomberg News survey called for a 210,000 rise. The jobless rate held at 8.3 percent, even as 476,000 more workers sought employment.[...]​
Click to expand...

I hope you are right. I fear the gas prices are going to destroy any positive movement we have and force us back into a recession.
 
Last edited:
roughdraft274 said:
That's assuming that all of those people are going to be out looking for jobs. Some people are stay at home parents, some people are retiring and giving those jobs to new people, some people are disabled and not able to work. I'm thinking those government employees that deal with these numbers all day long are much better at this than you or I. I was merely pointing out that your assertion of 250,000 has not been verified as far as I have seen. Every where I look it says 125,000 to keep up with population growth, 250,000 / month on average to actually reduce the unemployment number in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

I am going with the 200 to 250 thousand to keep up with population growth and 500k or better to make any meaningful dent in the unemployment numbers.

Those figures are as good if not better than anything this current administration is putting out.
 
Hidden unemployment numbers stymie Obama’s job growth claims

Published: 7:47 PM 03/09/2012
By Neil Munro

There’s so much hidden unemployment in the labor force that even Friday’s improved jobs numbers failed to decrease the official unemployment rate of 8.3 percent.

In February, the private sector added 233,000 new jobs, but 476,000 non-working people began looking for a job. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) rules, only by seeking work did those individuals officially become unemployed.

That’s because BLS does not count workers as unemployed unless they have actively searched for work in the last four weeks. As a result, millions of non-working people are not counted as unemployed by BLS officials.

The statistical quirk is the flip side of the administration’s effort to minimize the high level of unemployment for the last three years, and it may hinder progressives’ efforts to claim victory on the jobs front in November.

If more non-working people begin searching for jobs, “the economy is going to have to create an average of 246,000 jobs between now and November, just to keep the unemployment rate at eight percent, and so we are not even at that pace yet,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, an economist and the president of the American Action Forum.

If the BLS rules weren’t in place, the current unemployment rate would be somewhere around 11 percent, analysts say. The unemployment number would be as high as 15 percent if part-time workers seeking full-time employment were recognized in the unemployment rolls.

Jobs | Unemployment | Barack Obama | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

That's why it's necessary to use the non seasonally adjusted numbers from the BLS folks.
 
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 who?

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 rolls, 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 there are 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.

COSTELLO: 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 hell I just said!


And now you know why our unemployment figures are improving!
 
Meanwhile, back in the real world, things keep on improving. These are today's headlines:

"U.S. stocks advanced, sending the Dow Jones Industrial Average toward the highest level since 2007, as retail sales rose by the most in five months and as investors awaited a Federal Reserve decision on interest rates."

Dow Rises to Highest Level Since 2007 - Bloomberg

"Potential homebuyers and sellers are growing more confident that the U.S. real estate market will begin to recover as soon as next year, according to a Prudential Real Estate survey.

Sixty percent of people surveyed last month had positive views about the housing market and 70 percent expected property values to improve over the next two years, according to the survey released today. About 63 percent of respondents said they considered real estate a good investment, up from 52 percent last year, the Irvine, California-based broker reported."

Americans More Confident in Housing Recovery - Bloomberg

"Americans heartened by an improving labor market boosted spending at stores and malls by the most in five months, adding to signs that the world’s largest economy is gaining strength.

The 1.1 percent advance followed a 0.6 percent increase in January that was larger than previously estimated, according to Commerce Department data issued today in Washington. Sales rose in 11 of 13 categories, including auto dealers and clothing stores, showing gains in demand were broad based."

Retail Sales in U.S. Rose in February by Most in Five Months - Bloomberg

As Republicans shed a collective tear at the prospect of a building recovery....
 
As Republicans shed a collective tear at the prospect of a building recovery....
Click to expand...

Not even close.

I don't care if the unemployment rate was at 3%, the stock market at 15,0000 and gas prices were under two dollars, there would still be so much wrong about this Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, that I would vote for anyone but Him.

Here's just two:

The President thinks he has the right to commit US troops to a combat role on the say so of the UN or even just NATO.

The Director of the FBI has to check with his boss to see if the government has the right to kill Americans here at home if the President so chooses.


These are two issues that both the Liberals and the Conservatives ought be shoulder to shoulder in unison in opposition.

This Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, has got to go.
 
Kushinator said:
The silence from the "we are all doomed crowd" is deafening.
Click to expand...

In November of 2011 there were 133,172,000 people employed. In Feb 2012 there were 131,164,000 people employed, that means there were a little less than 2 million less people employed in Feb 2012 than just a few months before in Nov 2011. I really didn't think you wanted to hear that, but suit yourself!

Source: Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands]
 
Woops misread
 
Last edited:
a777pilot said:
Not even close.

I don't care if the unemployment rate was at 3%, the stock market at 15,0000 and gas prices were under two dollars, there would still be so much wrong about this Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, that I would vote for anyone but Him.

Here's just two:

The President thinks he has the right to commit US troops to a combat role on the say so of the UN or even just NATO.

The Director of the FBI has to check with his boss to see if the government has the right to kill Americans here at home if the President so chooses.


These are two issues that both the Liberals and the Conservatives ought be shoulder to shoulder in unison in opposition.

This Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, has got to go.
Click to expand...

Your second point was implemented under republicans who have no intention of getting rid of that rule. Your first point I've heard stated before, but as I said then, under the law he still had to get Congress approval after x number of days (2 months I believe) before the action becomes impeachable. It also follows just war theory and the evolution of presidential war powers since the 1950s. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Congress

Edit in the topic of the thread its a shame that I was right when I said the economy would be largely fixed by 2014... In 2008 :(

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom