Page 101 of 215 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111151201 ... LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,010 of 2145

Thread: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

  1. #1001
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Unemployment isn't going to move until the people (or workforce) caught in the "void" gain employment....

    People do realize that if you don't meet the following criteria that you are not counted in unemployment statistics:

    a) currently receiving unemployment.

    b) currently have a job.

    If both A and B don't apply to you then you're part of the "void."

    We've hit rock bottom. The only way unemployment numbers will drop is when those caught in the "void" start to go back into the workforce, however that's going to take years and years (it really depends on our governments position on taxation and regulation)....

  2. #1002
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,568
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Which means that for the month in question they are NOT participating in the labor market.
    NO...it merely means on the day they answered the question they were not. And even so, howsoever a sample is applied, it is still only a "representative sample" and may not actually have value among the hundreds of millions it is supposed to represent.

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Who cares about fault? And the point is that if they're not trying to get a job we can't know if they could or not. For Discouraged, we just have their belief, which may or may not be accurate.
    I do, because I know their belief is NOT inaccurate. This is a buyer's market, and employers have ample choice among hundreds of candidates in just about any job opening. Human Resources sections don't want to deal with ALL applicants, so they do triage...eliminating people "too old, too young, not enough education, too much education, criminal records...etc. That's business as usual, which is more devastating to job seekers in a smaller job market. If you happen to fall into one or more of those categories and consistently get no response from applications, you might get a little discouraged. Ya think?

    I've also dealt with hundreds of discharged workers who had criminal records and were so desparate to work they denied criminal history on applications in hopes of getting a foot in the door and proving their value. They get hired, work for 6 - 13 months with no problems, then get fired for lying. In every case when I asked the employer would they have hired the person had they been honest on the application, the answer was NO! These people wanted to work and had good work records once hired, some even up for promotions when the info was discovered. If they are honest they don't get hired, if they lie they get hired and work some, but then get fired for lying. Would you get "discouraged?"

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    You're saying they're lying about their reasons?
    Uh...if you are asking about reasons given by the unemployed? NO, for the most part they are telling the TRUTH about their reasons. Why would you think I thought the unemployed were lying? Employers? Hell yes, they lie all the time, an opinion garnered from empirical evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    And your alternative would be......???
    Duh, you already know it...count everyone of legal age and capable of working, minus prisoners, soldiers, retirees, and disabled on public assistance based on info garnered from tax records. Basically counting everyone else including the "Hidden Unemployed."

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Households are in the survey for 4 months, out for 8, back in for 4. Each month is 8 panels each in a different month, so every month you have around 7,5000 in their first month, and 7,500 returning after a break. So about 75% of the sample is the same from one month to the next and for the same month in consecutive years, about 50% is the same.
    OH. so it IS like the Nielson Ratings? LOL It's still a B/S system as far as I am concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    It's a very complicated survey and really, it couldn't be manipulated...
    ....blah blah blah. If you are of legal age, capable of working, and can make yourself available for work THEN YOU ARE UNEMPLOYED! Period! That's because at any time of any working day you have the potential of seeking work.

    Anything else is business supported government propaganda.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 07-11-13 at 03:33 PM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  3. #1003
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Unemployment isn't going to move until the people (or workforce) caught in the "void" gain employment....

    People do realize that if you don't meet the following criteria that you are not counted in unemployment statistics:

    a) currently receiving unemployment.

    b) currently have a job.

    If both A and B don't apply to you then you're part of the "void."

    We've hit rock bottom. The only way unemployment numbers will drop is when those caught in the "void" start to go back into the workforce, however that's going to take years and years (it really depends on our governments position on taxation and regulation)....
    Prove that last part, concerning taxes and regulations when all the evidence says those things have minimal effect at best.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #1004
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Is that what your textbooks told you? Ever been out in the real world? There is a reason Reagan has a higher approval rating and ranking than Obama. Obama is making Jimmy Carter look good and making you look foolish. Reagan provided the leadership to actually meet with Tip ONeil and the Democrat House. Reagan had the leadership to actual demand that Congress work together and set the tone by doing it with ONeil. Reagan didn't take African vacations or play golf every weekend. Reagan actually promoted the greatness of America and is loved today by all except big govt. promoting liberals.
    Isn't funny how when you are confronted by facts and figures comparing the 2 eras (and I keep having to remind the old man, I was in college and working in 1980) all you can do is to revert back to full rhetoric, falling back to "leadership". Carter and O'Neil did not get along because Carter wanted to do what he did in Georgia, cut back on spending. O'Neil wanted the fat military spending proposals Reagan was willing to offer. What p'd off O'Neil was the underhanded use of the FICA rate increases Congress approved, it did not go into SS but was used to finance the general fund spending.

    Oh no, I just went all historical and factual again.......sorry....I know it hurts.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  5. #1005
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    It is not based on opinion or perception, but simply based on the data! Which of course supports my position.
    I don't know why you think your unbiased data trumps Conservative's biased opinion?

  6. #1006
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Unemployment isn't going to move until the people (or workforce) caught in the "void" gain employment....

    People do realize that if you don't meet the following criteria that you are not counted in unemployment statistics:

    a) currently receiving unemployment.

    b) currently have a job.

    If both A and B don't apply to you then you're part of the "void."
    Absolute rubbish. Where on Earth did you get that idea from?

    How the Government Measures Unemployment
    Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
    ...
    Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
    Or, from the Technical Note to the Employment Situation:
    People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
    they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
    And how do you explain A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex which is a breakdown of those neither Employed nor Unemployed?
    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. #1007
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Isn't funny how when you are confronted by facts and figures comparing the 2 eras (and I keep having to remind the old man, I was in college and working in 1980) all you can do is to revert back to full rhetoric, falling back to "leadership". Carter and O'Neil did not get along because Carter wanted to do what he did in Georgia, cut back on spending. O'Neil wanted the fat military spending proposals Reagan was willing to offer. What p'd off O'Neil was the underhanded use of the FICA rate increases Congress approved, it did not go into SS but was used to finance the general fund spending.

    Oh no, I just went all historical and factual again.......sorry....I know it hurts.
    Facts? Don't need no stink'in facts!




    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #1008
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Right, and people don't work in the defense industry. All those evil corporations and business that don't hire people or aren't run by people. Yes, the new liberal normal, demonize the engine that drives our economy. Love how liberals love percentage change and inflation adjusted numbers ignoring that expenses and revenue during the time frame are what people have, what people spend thus is irrelevant today.
    I thought that you weren't a fan of Keynesian economics. The majority of defense spending is pure Keynesian. Are you in favor cuts in the nationís defense?
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  9. #1009
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Isn't funny how when you are confronted by facts and figures comparing the 2 eras (and I keep having to remind the old man, I was in college and working in 1980) all you can do is to revert back to full rhetoric, falling back to "leadership". Carter and O'Neil did not get along because Carter wanted to do what he did in Georgia, cut back on spending. O'Neil wanted the fat military spending proposals Reagan was willing to offer. What p'd off O'Neil was the underhanded use of the FICA rate increases Congress approved, it did not go into SS but was used to finance the general fund spending.

    Oh no, I just went all historical and factual again.......sorry....I know it hurts.
    Aw, yes, Reagan did exactly what Tip ONeil wanted, LOL, you want badly to re-write history but you cannot change it. So you were in college during the Reagan years, how about that, a real expert on what was going on out in the real world. I keep hearing about how much money Reagan spent on defense but never have I seen you put a dollar figure on it nor do I ever hear you or anyone else talk about the Peace dividend left by Reagan or the rebuilding of the military as a result of Carter where helicopters couldn't even stay in the air. Yes, historical data that you want to ignore is the data that ranks Reagan high in performance something Obama will never see. He is making Carter look good and that is saying something.

    Obama lacks the leadership skills for the job he holds and you along with all the other supporters lack a basic understanding of what leadership really is. Such low standards and expectations have blinded you to reality.

  10. #1010
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Donc View Post
    I thought that you weren't a fan of Keynesian economics. The majority of defense spending is pure Keynesian. Are you in favor cuts in the nation’s defense?
    I keep hearing how much Reagan spent on defense, put a dollar figure on it and compare the discretionary budget today to the discretionary budget then vs non discretionary budget then vs what it is today. Spending that generates 17 million new jobs, doubles GDP, increases tax revenue by over 60% doesn't seem to be a problem for thinking individuals. Wonder how many Americans would take those numbers today? 1.7 trillion added to the debt to generate those numbers vs. 6.2 trillion today to generate the numbers we have now. Hmmm, wonder which one the American people would prefer?

Posting Permissions

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