Page 106 of 215 FirstFirst ... 65696104105106107108116156206 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,060 of 2145

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

  1. #1051
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Stop lying, Con?

    Here are the real GDP numbers:

    1980: 5,834.0
    1988: 7,607.4

    Actual gain: 30% (i.e., not double)

    http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
    Looks like double to me

    Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product
    [Billions of dollars]
    Bureau of Economic Analysis
    Last Revised on: June 26, 2013 - Next Release Date July 31, 2013

    Line 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
    1 Gross domestic product 2788.1 3126.8 3253.2 3534.6 3930.9 4217.5 4460.1 4736.4 5100.4 5482.1

  2. #1052
    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 Conservative View Post
    You are very good at changing topics and ignoring the data posted because the data posted shows Obama to be exactly who he is, a total and complete incompetent failure.
    Projecting again.

    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.

  3. #1053
    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
    Ever figure out what that massive increase in military spending was under Reagan? 200 billion when he took office to 350 billion in 1988. Keep reading your textbooks while ignoring the mess Obama has created for actual people today.
    Um, you are not adjusting for inflation (again), Reagan nearly doubled defense spending.

    So now that you have the proof of the levels of increases during Reagan, what are you going to deny next?
    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.

  4. #1054
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Yes, really. You can look up the numbers if you don't believe me.
    Tell your story to the 21 plus million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers out there and the hundreds of thousands of contract employees and business owners who have lost their jobs and businesses. I posted the actual numbers so you have some explaining to do, how can 7.2 million jobs be created and still have fewer people working than 2007 by 2 million and only 177,000 less employed today than when Obama took office. Apparently that is a success to a liberal with such low expectations. Is that how you operate in real life, low expectations, low results means satisfaction? Are you ready to admit that Obama hasn't met your expectations or are they really this low?

  5. #1055
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Um, you are not adjusting for inflation (again), Reagan nearly doubled defense spending.

    So now that you have the proof of the levels of increases during Reagan, what are you going to deny next?

    Why would I adjust for inflation, the numbers are what they were at the time and people lived with those numbers and those expenses. Reagan took defense spending from 200 billion to 350 and left Clinton with a Peace dividend. A 150 billion increase over 8 years isn't much of an increase at all to win the cold war and to leave us a peace dividend.

  6. #1056
    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 Conservative View Post
    Real means adjusted for inflation and expenses and revenue during the time period involved have nothing to do with inflation. Keep spinning. Must be tough being on the wrong side of history.
    If the numbers were on your side, you wouldn't be lying like you do.:

  7. #1057
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    If the numbers were on your side, you wouldn't be lying like you do.:
    You have a problem with the BEA numbers take it up with them

  8. #1058
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Um, you are not adjusting for inflation (again), Reagan nearly doubled defense spending.

    So now that you have the proof of the levels of increases during Reagan, what are you going to deny next?
    For someone who complains about military spending, your focus is on the wrong President

    CHARTS: U.S. Military Spending Is Totally Out Of Control And Can't Last - Business Insider

  9. #1059
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    NO...it merely means on the day they answered the question they were not.
    No. The questions are about the previous week. So for June, the Census workers went out on the week on June 16-22 and asked about labor force activity for the week of June 9-15. If someone worked (or temporarily absent) they were classified as Employed. If they didn't work they were asked if they had looked for work anytime between May 19-June 15. If yes, then they were classified as Unemployed. For those Not in the labor force, it means that for those 28 days they were not participating in the labor market.

    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?
    Your originally claimed in Post #908 that "Furthermore, the government creates a class of "not seeking work" containing over 80 million people, at least 40 million of which are able to work, old enough, and may actually be seeking work but have not been hired yet." I replied that if they were seeking work they'd be classified as Unemployed and then you responded that "Again, depends on your viewpoint. Having worked with both employers and the unemployed I am a little less skeptical about real causes of their "disgust" and "marginality."" But since all the info on job search and availability comes from the respondents, it certainly seems like you're questioning the validity of the classifications. You seem to be implying that they really are looking, yet are classified as not.

    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."
    So basically, do a complete census every month. Otherwise you couldn't get that kind of info.

    For the Employment Statistics a (mostly) complete count based on tax records is done...the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). That takes 7 months to publish preliminary results for a quarter and that's just finding out people on payrolls and average wages and hours. For the full details required for everyone over 16 would take a huge number of people over a year. But you think it can be done every month?

    As for the accuracy of the surveys, the official jobs numbers (Current Employment Survey) is benchmarked against the QCEW comparing the actual numbers from March to the estimate. In March 2012, estimate was 132,081,000 and the real number was 132,505,000. A difference of 0.3% I think that's a reasonable level of accuracy.

    The data from the household survey is a bit less accurate...about +/-0.4% for total employed and about +/- 3% for unemployed.

    ....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.
    POTENTIAL. Why do you want to measure potential instead of actual? The main number is, as it should be, the actual number seeking work, with the Potential listed seperately.

    Analogy time. Let's say you run a giveaway of Item X every week. Last week you gave away 1,000 and you want to know the max you could have given away that day. You get interviews from everyone who was in town that day...1,695 people. You ask them
    Did you get Item X? 1,000 say yes
    If no, did you want one? 134 say yes, 561 say no.
    If yes, could you have stopped by and received one? 102 say yes, 31 say no.
    If yes, did you try to get one (show up, ask family/friend to get one or if there were any available)? 85 say yes, 18 say no.
    If no, why didn't you try or ask? 11 say they were just busy doing other things and never got around to it, and 7 say they just didn't think they'd get one.

    So....(and I realize you hate word problems)....If you had more, how many would you have given away? (assuming only that you had more..not that you could have convinced people to take one).
    Obviously it's at least 1,000. Could you have given them away to the people who didn't want one? No.
    And the people who were unable to come by and could not have picked one up? Obviously not.
    The people who made an attempt and failed to get one? Sure, so that's 85 for a total of 1,085
    And the people who didn't try or even ask if there were any? No, because no matter how many you had they wouldn't know you had enough, regardless of why they didn't go or ask.

    So I would say you could have given away a total of 1,085. But you would include some of the people who said they didn't want one.....why? How could they, or the people who didn't try to get one, have gotten one? (again, only talking about having more, not about doing anything different.
    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.

  10. #1060
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    For claims of cause and effect, studies are usually required, even here. Such as studies provided that showed taxes and regulations had minimal effect. You'll find those posted earlier. Even a link to business people supporting regulations.
    Well, you see, that's the thing about numbers and figures.

    I posted something about my experience.

    You don't possess the ability to refute what I posted, because you don't know anything about me, or my experience. Attempting to do so only denegrates your claims.

    Your figures have no relevance. As anyone can prove, numbers are available to support any position, no matter how fallacious.

    Considering how many people have been taught to believe the country began to disintegrate the moment Reagan finished saying the oath of office, I can appreciate the tremendous effort to come up with anything to support the lesson plan.

Posting Permissions

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