Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 79 of 79

Thread: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

  1. #71
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,360

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Any question about why Latin America remains a Third World region is answered by the people in the picture.

    Are these the types of immigrants Progressives want to compare our nation of immigrants to?
    who says we are limiting the "best and the brightest" with our immigration policies???

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    The majority of stimulus money was in the form of tax cuts and aid to state/local government. I have maintained the same sentiment that it was too small and poorly targeted.
    More dishonesty. You're just tossing up a bunch of strawmen now. This is pathetic.

    They weren't "Tax Cuts". They were "Tax Credits" which is Government Spending. Tax Credits are not Tax Cuts. Not only that, but a lot of Individuals who take advantage of these "Tax Credits" don't even pay taxes.

    Again, you have yet to refute a single comment i have made. Government spending is simply a subset of GDP, which can be observed by the national income accounting identity: GDP = C + I + G + (NX). A deficit adds to GDP by definition; there is no debate here.
    I've refuted everything you have stated. All the Government Spending (especially over the last 4 years) hasn't created any wealth. All it has created is massive debt. 6 trillion added to the deficit. Pure waste. It's a shifting of resources. Nothing more.

    I am not the one who brings up President Obama in every single response! Debate the topic, not your like/dislike of the current administration via proxy.
    Obama is the President. These are his economic policies. It was his hand picked economic team who pushed the Stimulus with false promises. My original point stands. When you can't refute facts, you try and belittle, objectify, call people stupid, ect. It isn't working.

    If we were to balance the budget tomorrow, aggregate output initially declines, dollar for dollar, by way of elimination of federal deficits. This can be observed by way of the national income accounting identity GDP = C + I + G + NX.
    Oh hey another strawman. It's not even possible to balance the budget tomorrow. Not spending a trillion a year we don't have would be a nice start though. Th Economy just shrunk after 6 trillion was spent. The economic policies you advocate are not working.

    Can you source this statement? Of course not!
    You're confused. I think you need to learn the difference between what Keynes advocated, and what post-Keynesians advocate. You can start by reading the link you cited. Secondly, do you understand what a Structural Deficit is? This is major fail on your part. Keynes advocated cyclical deficits, which is completely different than structural deficits, which are large deficits even at full employment. He never advocated borrowing 46 cents for every dollar the Government spends either.

    How Obama got Keynes wrong - Feb. 5, 2010

    He would roll over in his grave if he could see the things being done in his name. Keynes was opposed to large structural deficits. He thought that they chilled rather than stimulated the economy. It's true that we're stuck with large deficits now. The goal should be to reduce them, not to take on new spending that makes them worse.
    When unemployment is abnormally (and persistently) and given the existence of a liquidity trap (short term interest rates at the zero bound), fiscal policy responses in the form of increased public expenditure alleviate economic downturns. Again, this can be observed by the national income accounting identity: GDP = C + I + G + (NX) and a basic IS/LM diagram.
    Looks like you busted open an Economics book. How silly. The Fed has set "short term interest rates" at zero since the end of 2007 early 2008. All it's doing is creating another bubble and destroying wealth. Bernanke (The Crook) plans on keeping them low until 2014. A full six years. This is unprecedented. Not "short term". This is going to have far damaging negative affects on the Economy in the long term.

    Stimulus is not a long term solution to high unemployment. This is a strawman at best.
    It wasn't even a solution for short term unemployment. Unemployment just went up. Not down. The Economy just shrunk. It didn't grow. You're the guy who keeps advocating more Stimulus spending, and larger stimuli after we just enacted the largest stimulus package in American History to pathetic results. You're all over the map, claiming we need more stimulus, and then in the next post claiming it isn't a long term solution. 6 trillion spent in 4 years and you now admit it's not a long term solution to high unemployment? Sig worthy fail on your part.

    Stimulus is a short term solution to high unemployment; your comment is of no use (strawman).
    See above.

    Government failure and market failure are not mutually exclusive. Try again.
    You did not even address the point made. Try again.

    Quote me stating anything of the sort.
    Just go back and read your own posts. You advocate "Infrastructure Spending" and "Bigger Stimuli". Tell us what specific roads and bridges we need to fix then, and which ones we need to ignore for your snake oil to actually work.

    Detroit has a GDP of over $200 billion. The city would benefit from infrastructure stimulus when unemployment is high.
    Sure it will. Have you been there lately?

    Say you are correct (although i disagree); that does not equate to infrastructure stimulus having very little value. What do the experts (Civil Engineers) have to say?

    [Report Card for America's Infrastructure
    You've cited that article in the past and it was debunked. It's like asking the military if we need to completely rebuild it from the ground up. Their opinion is motivated by the need for fat Government contracts that will most likely go way over budget. Government intervention distorts incentives. Secondly you once again refuse to address the negative externalities of Job Poaching.

    An article on industrial planning does not support your premise that infrastructure stimulus will not boost short term economic growth. It simply argues that infrastructure planners (both public and private) can do much to improve their forecasting methods and accuracy.
    The way you try and sugarcoat what the article actually said is laughable. Par for the course.

    I suggest you read your own sources:
    I suggest you read the part of the source you quoted. It didn't state there was a fiscal multiplier greater than 1. We know there wasn't. All Obama's failed stimulus did was add to the deficit and create more debt. It stated there "can be". Too bad for you there wasn't. It's beyond refute. Nothing you quoted even remotely makes the case for your argument. On the contrary, if you read the source in full context it clearly makes my case. Nice try though.

    Economist John Taylor has studied the effect of Stimuli from the past. They run out of steam usually after only a few short months. Exactly what we saw with Obama's Failed Stimulus. Unfortunately your kids are still going to have to pay for it.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/publi.../05/Taylor.pdf

    Cuts in government spending while a slowly growing private sector continues to dig its way out can have that effect.
    You're lying again. Federal Outlays increased last quarter.

    http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

    1st: 966,188

    2nd: 884,957

    3rd: 809,969

    4th: 907,912
    By definition!
    The Economy shrunk. Federal Outlays increased. Federal Employment increased significantly. Try again.

    As did government expenditure in the tune of 6.6%, or 0.025% of GDP.
    See above. You're blatantly lying. Pathetic and desperate.

    Never intended to dispute it. But imagine that, increased federal deficits caused massive economic growth. Who would have thought?
    Refuted in the previous post. /Yawn this is becoming boring and tedious. Reagan 51% debt to GDP with an Economy that grew after he massively cut Marginal Rates from 70% - 28%. Domestic Spending decreased by 5%. Obama 103% debt to GDP. Shrinking Economy. You fail.

    We can use tax rates when Reagan left office; it really does not make a difference. Taxes are lower now then they were during any period of the Reagan Presidency. Understand the difference between progressive tax rates and effective tax rates.
    Wrong

    You're citing bogus information from the NYT. Go ahead, use the same calculator that the NYT did here - Internet TAXSIM Version 9.0 Home Page

    The times article purposely didn't mention Reagan because they used Carter's tax rates as part of their equation. Not very bright individuals have run with their obfuscation and beclowned themselves however. You're purposely not including Obamacare taxes in your assumptions. Sad and pathetic. Clinton also raised some rates higher than Reagan in 1993, but they brought back down again. Clinton later admitted he raised taxes too high.

    From 1988 - 2010 (Before the 20 new Obamacare taxes, including the tax mandate.)

    0 to 25K, decreased 4%
    25 to 50K, decreased by 3%
    50 to 75K, decreased 2%
    75 to 100K, decreased 2%
    100 to 125K decreased 1%
    125 to 150K decreased 1%
    150 to 200K exactly the same
    200 to 350K increased 2%
    350K+ increased 1%

    You lied

    Source?
    See above

    Consider this the last response. You have been exposed multiple times in this thread lying and distorting facts. You are a waste of my time and NOT a Libertarian. It should be against the rules to purposely misrepresent your political views on these forums

  3. #73
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    Oh no, another tea partier from the "dollars are sentient and know who spends them" school.

    Spending almost always creates jobs. The issue is what you spend on. If you spend on the military you produce few jobs. If you spend on education, infrastructure, health care, you produce a lot. Join the modern world and modern economy!
    If you give it away to the poor you create jobs.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #74
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,374

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Pure Obfuscation.

    You attempt to drown the reader in quotes from the BLS website, but at no place do you at all refute the facts that were in question.
    First you ask for cites, then you ignore them. Interesting. And I showed your misunderstanding of the facts.

    In fact, you showcase that the household questions are "by" the first week in January starting with the second week in December, so clearly the so-called January reports are mostly about December.
    I showed no such thing.
    Now read carefully and get the concept. The CPS is based on Reference Weeks, usually the week that contains the 12th day. The Survey Week, when the questions are asked, is the week after. I showed this in the CPS questionairre, which consistantly stated "Last week did you...?" Labor Force Activity is SOLELY for the reference week.
    The reference week for January was January 6-12. If a person had been fired January 4th, looked for and found work between the 5th and the 12th and started work on the 14th, he would be classified as Unemployed because during the reference week he did no work for pay.

    JOB SEARCH covers the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. So if you did not work Jan 6-12 but looked for work sometime between Dec 16 and Jan 12, you would be unemployed. I think that's what you were misunderstanding about the time periods.

    Another example...if someone was classified as unemployed in December, but found a job and started work Dec 17th (after the reference period), but was fired before January 6th and did not work Jan 6-12 (but looked for work since being fired) he would be classified as Unemployed because for each reference week, regardless of the time in between he was not working but looking for work.

    Alternatively, if someone worked during the December reference week, was fired, looked for work, found a job and started working during the January reference week, he would be classified as Employed for both months.

    And you completely ignore the reality of the 150,000 businesses surveryed where the questions put to them were from the second week in December through the first week in January how many people did you hire, fire, lay off, out-source, in-source, etc.
    The reference period for the Current Employment Survey is the pay period that contains the 12th. So the exact dates vary by payroll (which is why the CES is subject to 2 revisions). There are no questions about hiring, firing, lay-offs, out-source etc in the CES. The questions are (using the
    1. Manufacturing industries form):
    2. Employee Count
    3. Women Employee Count
    4. Payroll excluding commissions
    5. Commissions
    6. Hours including overtime
    7. Overtime

    Collected for All employees and Production Workers. CES Report Forms.

    There is another survey...the Job Openings Labor Turnover Survey...that collects data on job openings, hires, and separations, but is not part of the Employment Situation Report and has a greater lag.

    As for what does the BLS not allow as a valid job-search reason? For one, if you post an account with Monster or Dice or any employment data base where all the job openings are posted nowadays, with key search parameters for your profession and have that site send you an e-mail when a job-opening matching those parameters appears, that's not considered looking for work by the BLS requirements .. yet everyone does that anymore.
    Because it's not an active job search anymore than just reading the classified ads is. I have my resume out on a few such sites, but at the moment I'm ignoring all the emails. An active search means doing something that can get you a job...you answer an ad, or you get a hit from Monster and apply, that's active. Receiving emails is not an active search.

    And, when you can't accept that the BLS, the Census Department, they simply can't get an accurate handle on all the truly unemployed people, that they admit that the millions of not-in-labor-force "discouraged" workers the reports present is really only about 60% of the true figure, you then say "they're professionals, they'd never say that, no BLS worker ever told you that".
    Now you're twisting my words. I said no BLS employee would tell you that the U6 was a measure of Unemployment because it includes people who are employed. And there's less than a million discouraged right now. I highly doubt anyone told you that the count of discouraged was 60% of the true figure because how would they know what the "true figure" was?

    Clearly your political ideological agenda is to keep the BS up because it's the liberal thing to do to make the fictional numbers sweeter for Obama than they in reality are.
    I have stated no political opinion at all..merely informed you of the facts. Another fact: I voted for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.

    I really don't care whether the numbers favor Obama and House Repubs or harm either of them.
    Then why are you so quick to accuse me of bias?

    All I care about is the truth, which I have presented.
    As you believed it. I have shown you were in error...that you misunderstood or were mistaken on some facts. You seem to have trouble accepting that as a possiblity, though.
    Last edited by pinqy; 02-06-13 at 04:28 PM.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  5. #75
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    First you ask for cites, then you ignore them. Interesting. And I showed your misunderstanding of the facts. I showed no such thing.
    Now read carefully and get the concept. The CPS is based on Reference Weeks, usually the week that contains the 12th day. The Survey Week, when the questions are asked, is the week after. I showed this in the CPS questionairre, which consistantly stated "Last week did you...?" Labor Force Activity is SOLELY for the reference week. The reference week for January was January 6-12. If a person had been fired January 4th, looked for and found work between the 5th and the 12th and started work on the 14th, he would be classified as Unemployed because during the reference week he did no work for pay. JOB SEARCH covers the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. So if you did not work Jan 6-12 but looked for work sometime between Dec 16 and Jan 12, you would be unemployed. I think that's what you were misunderstanding about the time periods. Another example...if someone was classified as unemployed in December, but found a job and started work Dec 17th (after the reference period), but was fired before January 6th and did not work Jan 6-12 (but looked for work since being fired) he would be classified as Unemployed because for each reference week, regardless of the time in between he was not working but looking for work. Alternatively, if someone worked during the December reference week, was fired, looked for work, found a job and started working during the January reference week, he would be classified as Employed for both months. The reference period for the Current Employment Survey is the pay period that contains the 12th. So the exact dates vary by payroll (which is why the CES is subject to 2 revisions). There are no questions about hiring, firing, lay-offs, out-source etc in the CES. The questions are (using the
    1. Manufacturing industries form):
    2. Employee Count
    3. Women Employee Count
    4. Payroll excluding commissions
    5. Commissions
    6. Hours including overtime
    7. Overtime
    Collected for All employees and Production Workers. CES Report Forms. There is another survey...the Job Openings Labor Turnover Survey...that collects data on job openings, hires, and separations, but is not part of the Employment Situation Report and has a greater lag. Because it's not an active job search anymore than just reading the classified ads is. I have my resume out on a few such sites, but at the moment I'm ignoring all the emails. An active search means doing something that can get you a job...you answer an ad, or you get a hit from Monster and apply, that's active. Receiving emails is not an active search. Now you're twisting my words. I said no BLS employee would tell you that the U6 was a measure of Unemployment because it includes people who are employed. And there's less than a million discouraged right now. I highly doubt anyone told you that the count of discouraged was 60% of the true figure because how would they know what the "true figure" was? I have stated no political opinion at all..merely informed you of the facts. Another fact: I voted for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Then why are you so quick to accuse me of bias? As you believed it. I have shown you were in error...that you misunderstood or were mistaken on some facts. You seem to have trouble accepting that as a possiblity, though.
    Meaningless obfuscation and subterfuge, as apparently usual for you.

    You again go to lengths to pick on fine points that are simply not in debate question .. come to erroneous conclusions with them .. and then use those erroneous conclusions as a premise to your ultimate erroneous conclusion that the "January" BLS aren't mostly about December, when they obviously are, as your own hedging in explanation validates.

    Truly, what is your issue with the reality that these reports are mostly for December, the second week in December thru the first week in January?!

    The rest of your post is mostly simply repeating your insinuated opinion, simply because you don't like the truth of things as they are, especially about the fact that the number of discouraged workers is considerably greater than reported, as the BLS agent told me.

    As for your hair-split about "receiving e-mails is not actively looking for work", you just lost all ethical credibility right there, as you know the process I described is much more than just waiting for e-mails, but is truly about configuring a data base to send relevant information as it appears. That's an active and initiated process by the job-seeker. That the BLS doesn't consider that process, the process that just about everyone uses nowadays, to qualify as "looking for work", is part of the lies, damn lies, and statistical errors the current BLS method embodies.

    Who you voted for is neither here nor there.

    That you're presenting inaccurately to obviously defend something ideoloical, that is obvious.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  6. #76
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,374

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Kg
    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Meaningless obfuscation and subterfuge, as apparently usual for you.

    You again go to lengths to pick on fine points that are simply not in debate question .. come to erroneous conclusions with them .. and then use those erroneous conclusions as a premise to your ultimate erroneous conclusion that the "January" BLS aren't mostly about December, when they obviously are, as your own hedging in explanation validates.
    I haven't made any conclusion, I stated facts, which I note you have not shown wrong.

    Truly, what is your issue with the reality that these reports are mostly for December, the second week in December thru the first week in January?!
    because it's not true, no matter how many times you repeat it. Good God! I showed you multiple BLS sources that proved you wrong. The change is the difference between the 2nd week of December and the 2nd week of January as 2 static weeks. But please, quote and link to where on the BLS site your claim is supported.

    The rest of your post is mostly simply repeating your insinuated opinion, simply because you don't like the truth of things as they are, especially about the fact that the number of discouraged workers is considerably greater than reported, as the BLS agent told me.
    Give me a name, I'll call him myself. You are mistaken, though. I still don't get how you think your one interview, where you clearly misunderstood things such as who conducts the establishment survey, trumps my many weeks of training and discussions with many, many people at BLS
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  7. #77
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,374

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    ONE more time, it's simple: reference week. Someone could have worked all through December and the first week of January, but if he didn't' t work (fired or quit etc) during the January reference week (6-12) then he would have been classified as unemployed(assuming he looked for work). And if someone had been looking for work for years, but if he started a job January 6-12, he'd be Employed. I really Don't get what you don't understand about that.
    Last edited by pinqy; 02-06-13 at 11:24 PM.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Kg I haven't made any conclusion, I stated facts, which I note you have not shown wrong. because it's not true, no matter how many times you repeat it. Good God! I showed you multiple BLS sources that proved you wrong. The change is the difference between the 2nd week of December and the 2nd week of January as 2 static weeks. But please, quote and link to where on the BLS site your claim is supported. Give me a name, I'll call him myself. You are mistaken, though. I still don't get how you think your one interview, where you clearly misunderstood things such as who conducts the establishment survey, trumps my many weeks of training and discussions with many, many people at BLS. ONE more time, it's simple: reference week. Someone could have worked all through December and the first week of January, but if he didn't' t work (fired or quit etc) during the January reference week (6-12) then he would have been classified as unemployed(assuming he looked for work). And if someone had been looking for work for years, but if he started a job January 6-12, he'd be Employed. I really Don't get what you don't understand about that.
    You are looking at the color yellow and calling it pink.

    That is tantamount to what you are doing here .. and then you're asking me why I can't see that it's pink.

    I cannot help you here.

    You are either unable to see the facts as I clearly presented them ..

    .. Or you are purposely misconstruing utilizing subterfuge and obfuscation to suit an ideological agenda.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  9. #79
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,374

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    You are looking at the color yellow and calling it pink.
    Then explain, specifically, preferably with links and quotes. You keep saying I'm obfuscating, but you avoid specifics.

    Try an actual argument and explanation instead of avoiding actually trying to support your claims and just accusing me of ... you know I'm not even sure of what...you avoid specifics.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •