Page 132 of 163 FirstFirst ... 3282122130131132133134142 ... LastLast
Results 1,311 to 1,320 of 1628

Thread: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

  1. #1311
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Hey, Con, nice attempt to change the subject, but I never suggested they ran against each other.

    I was just hilighting your hypocrisy for voting for Bush. When he ran for re-election, his record was abysmal.

    You didn't care because results don't matter to you when the president is a Republican.

    And the only reason you care now is because the president is a Democrat.
    Your selective interpretation of the Bush results is typical of liberals who have to divert from the Obama failures. Still waiting for you to tell me what conservative economy policy Obama implemented? Economic performance was much better after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in July 2003. Economic growth was stronger and there was no demonization of individual wealth creation. The Obama results are a disaster, high debt, low economic growth, and massive numbers leaving the labor force along with high unemployment

  2. #1312
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    No, you don't have that. For example, the article you linked doesn't mention how many of that half that you call a "crappy economy" chose to go on disability rather than work.

    It leaves you guessing as to why that half left the work force. That half includes people switching to disability, people choosing school over work, etc....
    The fed article stated the following:

    'V. CONCLUSION

    The sharp decline of the LFPR since the onset of the recent recession is due to long-term shifts related to demographic trends and to the cyclical downturn in the labor market. A variety of evidence indicates that, on balance, trend factors account for about half of the decline in labor force participation from 2007 to 2011, with cyclical factors accounting for the other half.'


    http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econr...nZandweghe.pdf

    Cyclical downturn in the labor market?

    Cyclical factors accounting for the other half?

    That means (in essence) they left the work force because the economy sucked.

    It does not specify what they did once they left (like go back to school, go on disability, take up knitting, kill themselves, explore the wonders of living in a box, etc.).


    I am not going to go around and around on this with you.

    The Fed itself states (in essence) that 1/2 of those that have left the workforce since Obama took over have left because they could not find work (I.e. 'cyclical downturn in labor market').

    That means that they are still unemployed (as they left because they could not find work).

    And that means that adding in those people to the workforce (since Obama took over) brings the unemployment rate to over 9%.

    And you have posted zero links to disprove any of this - just more spinning theories of yours.

    Either post links to unbiased sources that disputes this or you will be ignored on this...I do not care about your wild theories...back them up with unbiased sources and maybe then I will pay attention.


    Have a nice day.

  3. #1313
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post

    What does people retiring have to do with 9 million people dropping out of the job markets ?
    First of all, 9 million people have not dropped out of the job market. You're citing the NILF figure which includes population growth as well as people who voluntarily left the job market. Furthermore, the NILF figure is growing at roughly the same pace it has been growing for the last 16 years; with a slight uptick at around the time of the housing bubble crash.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post

    All presidents incur debt, this one has exploded our debt and we have nothing to show for it.
    Bush exploded the debt. To show for it we ended up with the worst economy in 80 years and an additional 12 million people un/underemployed and discouraged. Most of the debt accumulated since then is recession related.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post

    People with 401ks don't like their investments being devalued as our Fed is literally forced to continue pumping as its actions drive up bond values and asset values.
    Ummm, their investiments are waaaay up. Who knows why you think they're devalued??

    But again, the point to that is during the recession, many seniors would have put off retiring because their investments were in the toilet. Now, many of them are more likely to retire since their investments are at, or near, all-time highs.

  4. #1314
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    You have this about backwards. Bush was 4.3%, Obama was 21.2%.

    Average for Bush years was 8.11, Average for Obama years has been 10.57 thus far.
    You're right, my bad. I wrongly relied on annual data, not monthly data.

  5. #1315
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    It never made it out of the Democrat chaired committee.

    Are you allergic to truth?

    I have a feeling you never read it. Truth is it was submitted to reign in the corrupt Democrats running Fannie and Freddie.

    How many Democrats including Nancy Pelosi signed a letter sent to tbe Bush White House opposing new regulations on Fannie and Freddie ?

    In 2004 ? Need a hint ?
    The truth is that President Bush didn't like the bill.

    George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

    snip
    The dramatic growth of the housing GSEs over the last decade, as well as recent accounting and operational problems, underscore the importance of protecting the broader financial markets from systemic risks caused by their actions. The housing GSEs' outstanding debt is approximately $2.5 trillion, and they provide credit guarantees on another $2.4 trillion of mortgages. By comparison, the privately held debt of the Federal government is $4.1 trillion. Housing GSE debt is issued largely to support sizable portfolio investments that are unnecessary to fulfill the GSEs' housing mission. Given the size and importance of the GSEs, Congress must ensure that their large mortgage portfolios do not place the U.S. financial system at risk. H.R. 1461 fails to provide critical policy guidance in this area.


    The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers. Likewise, provisions that divert profits will lead to increased risk-taking and decreased market discipline, while exacerbating systemic risk.


    The Administration remains committed to bringing real reform to the housing GSEs and looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to ensure that the needed reforms are part of any final legislation.

  6. #1316
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Ahhh...no.

    I said the difference in the participation rate since Obama took over.

    Since you are claiming(?!?) that the rate was actually 10% when he took over, then the unemployment rate would be well over 10% now.
    You still don't get it. I know you're factoring in the paricipation rate since Obama took over. But you're only doing that for the current unemployment rate -- you're not doing that for the unemployment rate when Obama became president.

    That's what I did for Bush; which made the unemployment rate 10% when Obama took over. By you saying it's up now even more than 10% because of that means you're factoring in the participation rate twice now for Obama.

    What you're trying to do, and it's not working out for ya, is increasing the unemployment rate based on the drop in the LFPR. But the mistake in your equation is that you're only factoring in the drop in LFPR since January of 2009; when in fact, that drop began much earlier.

    That means what you're doing is comparing the 7.8% that Obama inherited without factoring in the LFPR with the current 7.6% rate while factoring in the LFPR.

    Apples to oranges. If you want apples to apples, you have to factor in the LFPR drop while Bush was president, which elevates the unemployment rate from 7.8% to 9.9%. So again, even by that metric, Obama lowered unemployment.


    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    No idea what you are spinning now but the U-3 unemployment rate IS higher then the day Obama was inaugurated.
    There's no spin. The BLS data indicates the U3 rate was 7.8% when Obama became president and it's now 7.6%. In my world, 7.6 is lower than 7.8.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    If you add in all those people that (according to the Fed) left the workforce strictly because they cannot find work...then the unemployment rate would be well over 9%.
    That's where your problems begin -- you have no idea how many of those who left the workforce, did so because they wanted to.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Sorry pal, no matter how you spin it...the unemployment rate IS worse then the day Obama took over.
    Yet nothing you have presented indicates that. That seems to be your wishful thinking.

  7. #1317
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post

    It got thrown out in favor of Nancy Pelosi's bill (which made it to the president). Maybe it was just a crappy bill and that's why Republican leadership wouldn't put it to a vote in 2005?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post

    It never made it out of the Democrat chaired committee.

    Are you allergic to truth?
    WTF??

    What part of that bolded part confused you?


    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post

    I have a feeling you never read it. Truth is it was submitted to reign in the corrupt Democrats running Fannie and Freddie.

    How many Democrats including Nancy Pelosi signed a letter sent to tbe Bush White House opposing new regulations on Fannie and Freddie ?

    In 2004 ? Need a hint ?
    Doesn't matter -- Democrats were not in charge. I never said Democrats were on the right side of the issue. They weren't. But they were not in charge. Republicans were and Republicans failed to pass any legislation to add oversight on the GSEs. You can't blame the minority party for when the majority party fails to do its job.

  8. #1318
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    The fed article stated the following:

    'V. CONCLUSION

    The sharp decline of the LFPR since the onset of the recent recession is due to long-term shifts related to demographic trends and to the cyclical downturn in the labor market. A variety of evidence indicates that, on balance, trend factors account for about half of the decline in labor force participation from 2007 to 2011, with cyclical factors accounting for the other half.'


    http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econr...nZandweghe.pdf

    Cyclical downturn in the labor market?

    Cyclical factors accounting for the other half?

    That means (in essence) they left the work force because the economy sucked.

    It does not specify what they did once they left (like go back to school, go on disability, take up knitting, kill themselves, explore the wonders of living in a box, etc.).


    I am not going to go around and around on this with you.

    The Fed itself states (in essence) that 1/2 of those that have left the workforce since Obama took over have left because they could not find work (I.e. 'cyclical downturn in labor market').

    That means that they are still unemployed (as they left because they could not find work).

    And that means that adding in those people to the workforce (since Obama took over) brings the unemployment rate to over 9%.

    And you have posted zero links to disprove any of this - just more spinning theories of yours.

    Either post links to unbiased sources that disputes this or you will be ignored on this...I do not care about your wild theories...back them up with unbiased sources and maybe then I will pay attention.


    Have a nice day.
    I don't care how many times you repeat it, that half included people who voluntarily left the workforce. That includes people who chose disability over work and others who chose school over work. Some of both groups likely because they couldn't find work while others because they didn't want to work.

    You're still stuck with guessing what that number is and you refuse to understand that because no one measures those factors, you will never have anything but your guess to fill in that number, since there is no data on it.

  9. #1319
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    The Fed itself states (in essence) that 1/2 of those that have left the workforce since Obama took over have left because they could not find work (I.e. 'cyclical downturn in labor market').

    That means that they are still unemployed (as they left because they could not find work).
    Oh, btw ... no, it doesn't mean that either. That article is almost 16 months old. Since then, close to 3 million people have found work in the private sector.

  10. #1320
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    You still don't get it. I know you're factoring in the paricipation rate since Obama took over. But you're only doing that for the current unemployment rate -- you're not doing that for the unemployment rate when Obama became president.

    That's what I did for Bush; which made the unemployment rate 10% when Obama took over. By you saying it's up now even more than 10% because of that means you're factoring in the participation rate twice now for Obama.

    What you're trying to do, and it's not working out for ya, is increasing the unemployment rate based on the drop in the LFPR. But the mistake in your equation is that you're only factoring in the drop in LFPR since January of 2009; when in fact, that drop began much earlier.

    That means what you're doing is comparing the 7.8% that Obama inherited without factoring in the LFPR with the current 7.6% rate while factoring in the LFPR.

    Apples to oranges. If you want apples to apples, you have to factor in the LFPR drop while Bush was president, which elevates the unemployment rate from 7.8% to 9.9%. So again, even by that metric, Obama lowered unemployment.



    There's no spin. The BLS data indicates the U3 rate was 7.8% when Obama became president and it's now 7.6%. In my world, 7.6 is lower than 7.8.


    That's where your problems begin -- you have no idea how many of those who left the workforce, did so because they wanted to.


    Yet nothing you have presented indicates that. That seems to be your wishful thinking.
    Perhaps you folks should look at U-6. The rate in Jan 2009 was 14.2% and in March 2013 13.8% so a slight improvement over the last 4 plus years. Now with some facts people can debate whether the improvement shows good or bad performance of the administration.

Posting Permissions

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