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

Slyfox696 · Jul 5, 2013

I cannot decide what is more sad...the fact that Republicans/conservatives are always so unhappy when the jobs report comes out with a positive gain in jobs, or the fact they would be much happier if the jobs report showed a net loss of jobs.

It's un-American really.

j-mac · Jul 5, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
I cannot decide what is more sad...the fact that Republicans/conservatives are always so unhappy when the jobs report comes out with a positive gain in jobs, or the fact they would be much happier if the jobs report showed a net loss of jobs.

It's un-American really.

Logical fallacy here.

Anyway, I prefer neither. I would love to see positive numbers that I could be sure were actually positive. But don't tell me that things are getting better as I drive past shuttered businesses with locked gates, and weeds growing in the parking lots...I am not buying what the Obama is cookin'...But I certainly don't want to see negative numbers either...People are scratching by as it is, and this administration keeps its foot on the neck of the people with threats of higher prices, and taxes that scare the hell out of people like me, then turn around and try to tell me that things are getting better?

Come on man, nobody's that stupid.

Conservative · Jul 5, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
I cannot decide what is more sad...the fact that Republicans/conservatives are always so unhappy when the jobs report comes out with a positive gain in jobs, or the fact they would be much happier if the jobs report showed a net loss of jobs.

It's un-American really.

What is it about actual numbers and data that you don't seem to understand and want to ignore? Can you not see what Obama is doing to the private sector that really drives this economy? Why do liberals not understand how our economy works and buy the Obama rhetoric that 7.6% unemployment is the new normal and thus a good thing?. What about the 14.3% U-6 rate and the over 1 million people that dropped out of the labor force last month.

There isn't an individual that I know who doesn't want job creation but context matter and it is context that you want to ignore.

Slyfox696 · Jul 5, 2013

j-mac said:
Logical fallacy here.

Not really. And if I remember correctly, I've already had to educate you on fallacies before.

Anyway, I prefer neither. I would love to see positive numbers that I could be sure were actually positive. But don't tell me that things are getting better as I drive past shuttered businesses with locked gates, and weeds growing in the parking lots...I am not buying what the Obama is cookin'...But I certainly don't want to see negative numbers either...People are scratching by as it is, and this administration keeps its foot on the neck of the people with threats of higher prices, and taxes that scare the hell out of people like me, then turn around and try to tell me that things are getting better?

Roughly 40 months of consecutive private sector job increases and over 30 months of total job increases. Even with the increase of people in the labor force, there are less people unemployed now than there were in 2009 or 2010 during the height of the recession.

Nobody is threatening or trying to scare you, unless you're making enough money not to worry about it. The economy has continued to get better for years, and while I know that's disappointing for people like you, it's just the truth.

Conservative said:
What is it about actual numbers and data that you don't seem to understand and want to ignore?

I'm not ignoring anything, but what I've learned about you is that no matter how often you are proven wrong, you continue with your partisan based falsehoods. Which is why I usually ignore you.

Can you not see what Obama is doing to the private sector that really drives this economy?

You mean roughly 40 consecutive months of private sector job growth, even as government jobs continue to be pared down (65,000 federal jobs in the last year)?

Why do liberals not understand how our economy works and buy the Obama rhetoric that 7.6% unemployment is the new normal and thus a good thing?.

I didn't say anything about the unemployment rate in this thread, merely the fact that 195,000 jobs were added. I'll also mention the numbers for the past two months were revised up as well (by 70,000).

What about the 14.3% U-6 rate

You mean the U-6 rate that has dropped from 17.1% in 2009 and 2010 to the current 14.3%?

See, this is what I was talking about before. I am almost 100% certain I've pointed this out to you before, and here you are again continuing with the same nonsense.

If you don't see how a roughly 3% drop in a little over 3 years is an improvement, that pretty much says everything that needs to be said about your political blinders.

and the over 1 million people that dropped out of the labor force last month.

When you provide me data which shows WHY they dropped out, I might be inclined to care. Was it retirement? Was it going back to school? What is the reason? Oh, and by the way...the labor force participation rate has gone up in each of the last two months, from 63.3 in April to 63.4 in May and 63.5 in June.

Once more, we see improvement. So...what is it about the actual numbers and data that you don't seem to understand and want to ignore?

Sources:
June jobs report: Hiring strong, unemployment unchanged - Jul. 5, 2013
Molly's Middle America: How Many Jobs Has Obama Created or Lost? (May 2013 update)
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate
http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

Conservative · Jul 5, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
Not really. And if I remember correctly, I've already had to educate you on fallacies before.

Roughly 40 months of consecutive private sector job increases and over 30 months of total job increases. Even with the increase of people in the labor force, there are less people unemployed now than there were in 2009 or 2010 during the height of the recession.

Nobody is threatening or trying to scare you, unless you're making enough money not to worry about it. The economy has continued to get better for years, and while I know that's disappointing for people like you, it's just the truth.
I'm not ignoring anything, but what I've learned about you is that no matter how often you are proven wrong, you continue with your partisan based falsehoods. Which is why I usually ignore you.

You mean roughly 40 consecutive months of private sector job growth, even as government jobs continue to be pared down (65,000 federal jobs in the last year)?

I didn't say anything about the unemployment rate in this thread, merely the fact that 195,000 jobs were added. I'll also mention the numbers for the past two months were revised up as well (by 70,000).

You mean the U-6 rate that has dropped from 17.1% in 2009 and 2010 to the current 14.3%?

See, this is what I was talking about before. I am almost 100% certain I've pointed this out to you before, and here you are again continuing with the same nonsense.

If you don't see how a roughly 3% drop in a little over 3 years is an improvement, that pretty much says everything that needs to be said about your political blinders.

When you provide me data which shows WHY they dropped out, I might be inclined to care. Was it retirement? Was it going back to school? What is the reason? Oh, and by the way...the labor force participation rate has gone up in each of the last two months, from 63.3 in April to 63.4 in May and 63.5 in June.

Once more, we see improvement. So...what is it about the actual numbers and data that you don't seem to understand and want to ignore?

Sources:
June jobs report: Hiring strong, unemployment unchanged - Jul. 5, 2013
Molly's Middle America: How Many Jobs Has Obama Created or Lost? (May 2013 update)
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate
United States Labor Force Statistics - Seasonally Adjusted

I wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? You have never proven me wrong and 40 straight months of job creation means nothing to the 21 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers nor does it address the reality that there are 2 million fewer people working today than when the recession began. How do you explain that and how can you reconcile that with the numbers being reported?

How does the current number of people employed which is still over a million below the pre recession numbers show employment improvement. It does appear that you have no understanding of basic economic numbers and want to buy what you are told. BLS will give you all the information you need so I suggest you go there and get the answers. Retirements aren't included in the numbers as these are people who want jobs but cannot find them.

Does it really make any sense to you that all those jobs being created and the victory laps being taken still don't meet the population expansion? Please stop buying the rhetoric and get the facts. GW Bush had 48 straight months of job creation and even with the recession added 10 million people to the labor force.

MMC · Jul 5, 2013

Erod said:
Are numbers that hard for you to understand?

We lost a bunch of full-time jobs and added a bunch of part-time jobs.

This is third-grade stuff here.

Heya Erod. :2wave: It still hasn't dawned on them about the fact of having 200k jobs every month in order to get out from under the crisis. Well 230 to be more exact. Which clearly has not taken place. So they follow the drivel that Obama touts he has created jobs. Not only part time jobs but seasonal jobs too.

Jobs even today with all Obama has done. Are still under 2007 levels. So did he really create any jobs? Was he even able to keep pace with what Simpson Bowles and others stated had to happen? Should we count what he created overseas?

Not too bad, if you’re the very, very patient sort.

Employment Situation Summary

Employment Situation Summary

Slyfox696 · Jul 5, 2013

Conservative said:
I wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

I'm not a liberal. I'm also not irrational, which is why I have no problem with admitting there is an improving economy.

You have never proven me wrong

I did multiple times in my last post alone. You should try reading it, instead of dodging it.

and 40 straight months of job creation means nothing to the 21 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers

But it does mean something to the millions of people who have gotten a job since the height of the recession.

But good try at trying to change the topic. We're talking about the improving economy, not your arbitrary determination of what is a good economy.

nor does it address the reality that there are 2 million fewer people working today than when the recession began.

But it does address the fact there are 6 million more people working today than there were at the height of the recession. Hence the concept of improving economy.

How do you explain that and how can you reconcile that with the numbers being reported?

The Great Recession sucked. We're recovering from it. What exactly am I supposed to be reconciling?

No one said the economy today is better than the one before the recession, or at least I never did. What I've been saying is the economy has continued to improve under Obama since we hit the absolute valley during the recession. Why do you insist on being so blinded to the facts?

How does the current labor force which is still over a million below the pre recession numbers show employment improvement.

How does that matter? Why do you continue to ignore the fact the recession had an effect on the economy?

It's not like the recession is an arbitrary line separating differing economies, allowing for today vs. yesterday. The recession was a huge sledgehammer on the economy, one from which we've continued to recover.

It does appear that you have no understanding of basic economic numbers and want to buy what you are told.

An amusing statement from you. You ignore the fact I'm right and instead compare today to five years ago before the economic crash. Then you quote various statistics, which I then turn on you, and you ignore them because those numbers actually prove me right and you wrong.

BLS will give you all the information you need so I suggest you go there and get the answers.

I already did. You're ignoring those answers because they showed you just how wrong you were.

Retirements aren't included in the numbers as these are people who want jobs but cannot find them.

But retirements ARE included in the number of people who drop out of the labor force, a number you keep regurgitating. Apparently you're the one who needs to spend a little time understanding basic economic numbers.

It's really simple, and I'll say it one last time, slowly even, so that you might understand. Comparing today's economy to the one before the recession is asinine and is only done by those not interested in an honest debate on whether or not the economy is improving. An honest debate is one which looks at the numbers during the recession, studies them across the years, notes the trends and compares now to then. And when one does that, one will see the numbers, almost without exception, show a trend of continued improvement in the economy since late 2009/early 2010.

It's really simple. I suggest you put away your partisan blinders and just look at the facts.

a351 · Jul 5, 2013

MMC said:
Heya Erod. :2wave: It still hasn't dawned on them about the fact of having 200k jobs every month in order to get out from under the crisis. Well 230 to be more exact. Which clearly has not taken place.

So they follow the drivel that Obama touts he has created jobs. Not only part time jobs but seasonal jobs too.

I'll probably regret asking this, but where on earth did you derive the number of 230k jobs per month?

All headline figures are in seasonally adjusted form.

Conservative · Jul 5, 2013

Slyfox696;1062017337]I'm not a liberal. I'm also not irrational, which is why I have no problem with admitting there is an improving economy.

IF you aren't a liberal then look at the numbers rationally. Do you understand the components of GDP? Don't you think that with over 6 trillion added to the debt and a 3.7 trillion dollar budget that the GDP Growth would be higher? Why shouldn't the economy be growing with that kind of spending? The problem is it isn't sustainable and the private sector isn't benefiting and that is what our economy is.

I did multiple times in my last post alone. You should try reading it, instead of dodging it.

Your last post doesn't prove me wrong because it doesn't address what I posted nor does it really address the BLS data or actual numbers. If you bothered to check the actual results and compare then to what Obama inherited as well as what the numbers were before the recession you wouldn't be so happy about posting the information.

But it does mean something to the millions of people who have gotten a job since the height of the recession.

There never were over a million people dropping out of the labor force under GW Bush and no one should be happy four years after the end of the recession that we had a million people drop out last month. 2011 and 2012 numbers were worse than the recession years. The recession ended in June 2009 so here we are 4 years later and you tout this performance?

But good try at trying to change the topic. We're talking about the improving economy, not your arbitrary determination of what is a good economy.

I already explained this, if the govt. spends as much money as it has spent the economy is going to improve, the problem is however this improvement is a disaster, very poor. Check out the 81-82 recession and what economic growth was at the end of that recession? It was over 7% and that recession hurt the American people worse as evidenced by the misery index

But it does address the fact there are 6 million more people working today than there were at the height of the recession. Hence the concept of improving economy.

That simply isn't true, there are the same number working today as were working when Obama took office and 2 million fewer than when the recession began.

The Great Recession sucked. We're recovering from it. What exactly am I supposed to be reconciling?

The "Great Recession" wasn't worse than the 81-82 recession as I lived through both. Good leadership would have promoted private sector growth, Obama failed.

No one said the economy today is better than the one before the recession, or at least I never did. What I've been saying is the economy has continued to improve under Obama since we hit the absolute valley during the recession. Why do you insist on being so blinded to the facts?

My facts include the debt, deficits, economic growth, U-6 numbers. show me which numbers are better today than when the recession began in December 2007? Why do you have such low standards when it comes to Obama performance?

How does that matter? Why do you continue to ignore the fact the recession had an effect on the economy?

I don't, the recession ended in June 2009, what economic policies did Obama have in effect in June 2009 that ended the recession and what economic policies has Obama implemented that has made things better?

It's not like the recession is an arbitrary line separating differing economies, allowing for today vs. yesterday. The recession was a huge sledgehammer on the economy, one from which we've continued to recover.

You buy the rhetoric, why? How many recessions have you lived and worked through? Poor leadership prolonged the recession and yet Obama gets a pass. We are a private sector economy that Obama doesn't understand.

An amusing statement from you. You ignore the fact I'm right and instead compare today to five years ago before the economic crash. Then you quote various statistics, which I then turn on you, and you ignore them because those numbers actually prove me right and you wrong.

The recession ran from December 2007 to June 2009. It is June 2013 and shouldn't the performance be better?

I already did. You're ignoring those answers because they showed you just how wrong you were.

Then tell me exactly with numbers what I am wrong about?

But retirements ARE included in the number of people who drop out of the labor force, a number you keep regurgitating. Apparently you're the one who needs to spend a little time understanding basic economic numbers.

Retirements are out of the labor force but not counted as discouraged workers. You don't seem to know the difference nor do you account for the people entering the labor force. The problem is the discouraged workers and under employed so maybe you ought to learn what those numbers mean.

It's really simple, and I'll say it one last time, slowly even, so that you might understand. Comparing today's economy to the one before the recession is asinine and is only done by those not interested in an honest debate on whether or not the economy is improving. An honest debate is one which looks at the numbers during the recession and compares them to now. And when one does that, one will see the numbers, almost without exception, show a trend of continued improvement in the economy since late 2009/early 2010.

Sorry but you are wrong, that is what anyone has to compare results with and that is what Obama supporters always want to ignore. Obama has been an absolute failure, he said he had the answers to the problems, implemented an 842 billion dollar stimulus program and has failed. the results today are a disaster based upon the money spent and the results generated. How long are you willing to give Obama to get the numbers back to pre recession dates? You like far too many want to ignore that the recession ended in June 2009 according to BEA

It's really simple. I suggest you put away your partisan blinders and just look at the facts.

Sorry, but I spent 35 years in the Business world and was a born and raised Democrat. I learned to admit when I was wrong and that happened in 1980. One of these days that may happen to you as well. I know the private sector works, I understand personal responsibility, I understand the role of govt. Many here do not

MMC · Jul 5, 2013

a351 said:
I'll probably regret asking this, but where on earth did you derive the number of 230k jobs per month?

All headline figures are in seasonally adjusted form.

Well, that's what they reported back in 2008. Although it was more like 229 and some change so I rounded off.

here is one: we show job losses since the beginning of the Recession (excluding for the impact of census hiring), juxtaposed to the natural growth rate of the Labor Pool (and not the artificial one, which according to the BLS is the same now as it was a year ago). We discover that i) 7.6 Million absolute jobs have been lost since the beginning of the Recession; ii) that a record 10.5 Million jobs (and you won't find this statistic anywhere), have been lost when factoring in for the natural growth of the Labor Pool of 90-100K a month (we use the lower estimate, which also happens to be the CBO's estimate), and that iii) assuming we expect to return to the jobs baseline level as of December 2007 (or an unemployment rate of 5%) by the end of Obama's second term (and we make the big assumption there will be a second term), Obama needs to create 230,000 jobs each and every month consecutively from September through November 2016 in order for the total jobs lost to be put back into the labor force, and that iv) an optimistic (if more realistic) projection of jobs returning to the work force means the return the baseline will occur in 2019, some 7 years after the start of the last recession. The point of these observations is not to cast political blame on either party: we are in this predicament due to the combined stupidity, corruption and greed of both parties. The question is how do we get out of here. And unfortunately for all those hoping that a return to a normal, baseline past is possible, please forget it (i.e., the New Normal is really real), at least for the next 7 years. This also means that any charting, technical analysis and other "reversion to the mean" approaches of forecasting the future will all end up sorely lacking and misrepresenting the final outcome.

Chart 1: a simple baseline chart that shows where we were, where we are, and where we are going, with the assumption of recovering all labor force growth-adjusted jobs losses from December 2007 through the end of Obama's second term. The conclusion: the economy needs 229,300 jobs per month (incidentally, for the simplistic read on the labor force which does not account for demographic changes, which economists tend to conveniently forget all too often, a 230K jobs pick up a month, means a recoupment of baseline jobs lost in June of 2013).

Chart 2: We demonstrate that the cumulative jobs lost since December 2007, are in fact materially greater when adjusting for a realistic change in the labor force, instead of that presented by the administration, which naively expect people to believe that the labor force in August 2010 (154,110) was lower than that in August 2009 (154,426). That in the meantime the US population grew by 2.5 million seems to make no difference to the administration. Which only means that sooner or later this labor force participation will catch up to the numbers. Either way, we factor for it, and assume that the labor force was growing by 90K every month since the start of the recession, and add the cumulative differential to the jobs lost. The result: in the 33 months through August, the US has lost not 7.6 million jobs, but 10.5 million: a stunning 38% delta.....snip~

Also, from Bank of America Ethan Harris back then.....

Under the weaker growth trajectory we are now penciling in:

Private payrolls manage tepid monthly gains of just 25,000 through the end of 2010. As the growth recession fades in the second half of 2011, gains in private payroll employment should accelerate. We expect average monthly gains of 125,000 in the fourth quarter of 2011.
Therefore, for most of 2010 and 2011, employment growth is not expected to keep up with the rise in the labor force, which means the unemployment rate heads north. We expect a steady increase to 10.1% by the second quarter with a slow fall slightly below 10.0% by the end of 2011.

Slyfox696 · Jul 5, 2013

Conservative said:
IF you aren't a liberal then look at the numbers rationally. Do you understand the components of GDP? Don't you think that with over 6 trillion added to the debt and a 3.7 trillion dollar budget that the GDP Growth would be higher?

And once more, you attempt to change the discussion.

Your last post doesn't prove me wrong because it doesn't address what I posted nor does it really address the BLS data or actual numbers. If you bothered to check the actual results and compare then to what Obama inherited as well as what the numbers were before the recession you wouldn't be so happy about posting the information.

And again, you are being dishonest in the conversation. Obama inherited an economy that was falling, not one that had fallen. I'm comparing the information from the economy at the lowest point of the recession (which started before Obama took office) to the information now. Which is why I can state unequivocally the economy is doing better.

Look, here's the deal. You're wrong. I've proven you wrong multiple times and you keep trying to change the context of the discussion and comparing apples to oranges. I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of your silly partisan nonsense, because you will undoubtedly continue to engage in a dishonest discourse, all to deflect from the fact the economy has continued to improve under Obama since the height of the recession.

You are the proof of my earlier statement about how Republicans/conservatives hate the fact things are getting better. You hate it so much you are even denying the facts which are presented before your eyes. So you go on with your ridiculous statements which ignore the truth because of your irrational hatred of Obama. I don't plan on reading any more of it.

pinqy · Jul 5, 2013

Conservative said:
What about the 14.3% U-6 rate

What about it?

and the over 1 million people that dropped out of the labor force last month.

That's not in any way an accurate number. About 6,500,000 people left the labor force between mid May and Mid June.
But at the same time about 6,687,000 entered the Labor Force, for a positive net change. source:Labor force status flows by sex, current month

There isn't an individual that I know who doesn't want job creation but context matter and it is context that you want to ignore.[/QUOTE]

Conservative · Jul 5, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
And once more, you attempt to change the discussion.

And again, you are being dishonest in the conversation. Obama inherited an economy that was falling, not one that had fallen. I'm comparing the information from the economy at the lowest point of the recession (which started before Obama took office) to the information now. Which is why I can state unequivocally the economy is doing better.

Look, here's the deal. You're wrong. I've proven you wrong multiple times and you keep trying to change the context of the discussion and comparing apples to oranges. I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of your silly partisan nonsense, because you will undoubtedly continue to engage in a dishonest discourse, all to deflect from the fact the economy has continued to improve under Obama since the height of the recession.

You are the proof of my earlier statement about how Republicans/conservatives hate the fact things are getting better. You hate it so much you are even denying the facts which are presented before your eyes. So you go on with your ridiculous statements which ignore the truth because of your irrational hatred of Obama. I don't plan on reading any more of it.

I am sure that is what you believe and what you want to believe. You have yet to prove me wrong but you have ignored all the data posted. You haven't proven me wrong because you haven't addressed the data presented. Have at it, take your best shot. Only a true liberal could say that the economy is improving at a level good enough to actually make a difference. Obama inherited a recession, no question about it, the question is what economic policy did he have in place that brought us out of it in June 2009? I anxiously await an honest evaluation of the Obama economic policies. You want badly to believe what you are told but what you are told and the fact that you buy it makes you look and sound foolish. It really is a shame and shows why we are in the mess we are in. Deficits don't matter, debt doesn't matter, unemployment, discouraged workers, under employed people don't matter, low economic growth doesn't matter. How about a little inlellectual honesty for a change? Having such low expectations are going to lead to your demise in the future.

Conservative · Jul 5, 2013

pinqy said:
What about it?
That's not in any way an accurate number. About 6,500,000 people left the labor force between mid May and Mid June.
But at the same time about 6,687,000 entered the Labor Force, for a positive net change. source:Labor force status flows by sex, current month

There isn't an individual that I know who doesn't want job creation but context matter and it is context that you want to ignore.

[/QUOTE]

LOL, discouraged workers are monthly not cumulative and this is terrible performance. You claim it isn't an accurate number, then what is? You seem to have a problem with BLS so take up that issue with them.

Slyfox696 · Jul 5, 2013

Conservative said:
Obama inherited a recession, no question about it, the question is what economic policy did he have in place that brought us out of it in June 2009?

Against my better judgment, I did read your next post and once more, I see the ridiculousness.

The effects of the recession did not end in June 2009. You're simply trying to play word games. You're referring to the technical, but I'm talking about the actual effects on unemployment.

As for the rest of your post, it's the same nonsense I've noted. You keep trying to pull in extraneous information, all because of your intense dislike of the improving economy. You want me to engage in intellectual honesty, yet you keep saying I haven't addressed the BLS data, when I clearly sourced it in my earlier post, and that I won't address your comparison to a time which is irrelevant to our discussion. It's people like you who so turn me off to the Republican Party. You ignore the truth, because you want so badly for the Democrat to fail. You make up stuff, you engage in nonsensical comparisons, all because you want your team to win.

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt Democrats would/do do the same thing. It's just that people like you are so much worse about it right now, probably because the President has a D behind his name. So you go on with your nonsense, ignore the falling deficit spending, the lower U-6 rate and lower unemployment rate even as the number of people in the labor force rise, the rising GDP rate, the trend of fewer discouraged workers, the near record high stock market, etc. You keep doing that because, at the end of the day, those facts don't align with your political agenda. So go put on your red cheerleader outfit and shout some more Republican/conservative rhetoric. This time I truly will not bother to respond.

pinqy · Jul 5, 2013

MMC said:
here is one: we show job losses since the beginning of the Recession (excluding for the impact of census hiring), juxtaposed to the natural growth rate of the Labor Pool (and not the artificial one, which according to the BLS is the same now as it was a year ago).

Ummmmm "natural growth of the Labor Pool?" What is your definition of "labor pool?" And what makes the BLS definition of Labor Force "artificicial?" How do you think BLS calculates the Labor Force?

[qutoe]Chart 2: We demonstrate that the cumulative jobs lost since December 2007, are in fact materially greater when adjusting for a realistic change in the labor force, instead of that presented by the administration, which naively expect people to believe that the labor force in August 2010 (154,110) was lower than that in August 2009 (154,426). That in the meantime the US population grew by 2.5 million seems to make no difference to the administration. [/quote] Are you claiming there were more employed, or more unemployed, or more of both?

hmmmm or was that all a cut and paste job?

MMC · Jul 5, 2013

pinqy said:
Ummmmm "natural growth of the Labor Pool?" What is your definition of "labor pool?" And what makes the BLS definition of Labor Force "artificicial?" How do you think BLS calculates the Labor Force?

[qutoe]Chart 2: We demonstrate that the cumulative jobs lost since December 2007, are in fact materially greater when adjusting for a realistic change in the labor force, instead of that presented by the administration, which naively expect people to believe that the labor force in August 2010 (154,110) was lower than that in August 2009 (154,426). That in the meantime the US population grew by 2.5 million seems to make no difference to the administration.

Are you claiming there were more employed, or more unemployed, or more of both?

hmmmm or was that all a cut and paste job?[/QUOTE]

Well the link was with the Chart.....but you can have the link and all the references that go along with it. Including the BLS and CBO.

So let's adjusted the chart using Bank of America's projections, which assumesa gradual increase in the unemployment rate to 10% by Q3 2010 and a decline since then. We chart these projections on the chart below. According to this adjusted case, the payroll number will never return to the December 2007 baseline for the duration of Obama's term, even if one assumes 200K job pick ups beginning in January 2012 and continuing every month thereafter (as we have done). In November 2016 we forecast an unemployment rate of 5.7% using these assumptions. They are presented visually below:

And just to demonstrate what the recession will look like assuming even this quite optimstic assumption, here is the famous post WW2 recession comparison chart adjusted for an expansion of the depression (let's not split hairs here) labor force, that started in December 2007: it is shaping up to be 7 years before the jobs lost finally are put back into the system. And that's for those optimistically inclined.

So before everyone gets all political on who has done a more bang up job of destroying the economy, perhaps both sides can explain how they each got the US to a point where even wildly optimstic projections assume that the length of the most recent economic slowdown will take 85 months to resolve (and, in all reality, far, far longer).

Obama Must Create 230,000 Jobs A Month Until The End Of His Second Term For Return To Breakeven - Charting The New "7 Year Itch" Normal | Zero Hedge

References used.....and all links! So there is no mistaking the stats.

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics Corruption Ethan Harris New Normal Obama Administration Reality Recession recovery Technical Analysis Unemployment

You weren't going to try and say, that the US population didn't grow now were you?

Conservative · Jul 5, 2013

Slyfox696;1062017598]Against my better judgment, I did read your next post and once more, I see the ridiculousness.

The effects of the recession did not end in June 2009. You're simply trying to play word games. You're referring to the technical, but I'm talking about the actual effects on unemployment.

Sorry but I didn't say the effects of the recession ended in June 2009 only that the recession ended meaning that the economy wasn't in a downward spiral. Tell me the truth is this what you expected out of Obama when he was elected in 2008? The results just do not warrant the money spent and the debt created.

As for the rest of your post, it's the same nonsense I've noted. You keep trying to pull in extraneous information, all because of your intense dislike of the improving economy. You want me to engage in intellectual honesty, yet you keep saying I haven't addressed the BLS data, when I clearly sourced it in my earlier post, and that I won't address your comparison to a time which is irrelevant to our discussion. It's people like you who so turn me off to the Republican Party. You ignore the truth, because you want so badly for the Democrat to fail. You make up stuff, you engage in nonsensical comparisons, all because you want your team to win.

Guess I just have higher expectations than you and don't believe the economic results today are worth the investment and the direction Obama is taking us. You seem to lack a basic understanding of what my leaning is. I am NOT a Republican, I am a Conservative and there is quite a difference. It just happens that the Republican Party is closer to my point of view than Obama and the Democrat Party of today. Name for me the economic policies of Obama that you support?

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt Democrats would/do do the same thing. It's just that people like you are so much worse about it right now, probably because the President has a D behind his name. So you go on with your nonsense, ignore the falling deficit spending, the lower U-6 rate and lower unemployment rate even as the number of people in the labor force rise, the rising GDP rate, the trend of fewer discouraged workers, the near record high stock market, etc. You keep doing that because, at the end of the day, those facts don't align with your political agenda. So go put on your red cheerleader outfit and shout some more Republican/conservative rhetoric. This time I truly will not bother to respond.

LOL, reduction in Deficit spending? You mean the sequester that Obama said would be a disaster? You think Obama wanted to cut spending? You think a 3% reduction in the U-6 rate is something to cheer? Ok, great, it is down 3% at a cost of over 6 trillion dollars and the 4th largest budget item, debt service. You think a labor force increase of 1.5 million in 4 years keeps up with population growth? Sorry that isn't even close. You think 2% GDP growth is good economic growth? Sorry but you are the one that doesn't understand the economy at all.
You think Obama has anything to do with the stock market?

My political agenda is one that promotes the foundation upon which this country was built, a small central govt. and a private sector economy that promotes individual wealth creation.

pinqy · Jul 5, 2013

LOL, discouraged workers are monthly not cumulative and this is terrible performance.[/quote]You didn't specify discouraged, you just said dropped out. And it is a monthly snapshot of total discouraged, not just those who are in their first month of discouragement.

You claim it isn't an accurate number, then what is?

I gave you the numbers of people who left and entered the labor force. Net change was positive. Discouraged went up a lot, which is unusual, but so far not significant.

Conservative · Jul 5, 2013

I gave you the numbers of people who left and entered the labor force. Net change was positive. Discouraged went up a lot, which is unusual, but so far not significant.

Wrong, the u-6 number is unemployed, DISCOURAGED, and under employed. Discouraged workers are people who dropped out because they couldn't find a job and saw no prospects of a job.

The number is 21 million and has nothing to do with retirees. You don't think a million in June was significant? Do you really have such low standards? GW Bush who is Satan to liberals never had a million discouraged workers in a month. My bet is most liberals wouldn't be too happy if these numbers were a Republicans

Boo Radley · Jul 5, 2013

j-mac said:
Obama supporters, as well as seemingly the administration itself have disingenuously been ignoring the U-6 catagory from the beginning...

I doubt anyone is ignoring it. Both parties use the same number when they are in power.

Conservative · Jul 5, 2013

Boo Radley said:
I doubt anyone is ignoring it. Both parties use the same number when they are in power.

Please advise when any Republican had over a million people discouraged?

ttwtt78640 · Jul 5, 2013

Conservative said:
Please advise when any Republican had over a million people discouraged?

Have you never witnessed a Rick Perry speech?

Unitedwestand13 · Jul 5, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
Have you never witnessed a Rick Perry speech?

Or the mitt Romney presidential campaign. Too soon

Boo Radley · Jul 5, 2013

Conservative said:
Please advise when any Republican had over a million people discouraged?

See above.

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

Slyfox696

j-mac

Conservative

Slyfox696

Conservative

MMC

Slyfox696

a351

#NeverTrump

Conservative

MMC

Slyfox696

pinqy

Conservative

Conservative

Slyfox696

pinqy

MMC

Conservative

pinqy

Conservative

Boo Radley

Conservative

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Unitedwestand13

Boo Radley